The court has the power and duty to compel the appearance of material witnesses and must take all appropriate steps to secure their attendance, as provided in Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. No one is present on behalf of opposite party No.1. Mr. Jaiswal is present on behalf of the State.

2. The present application is directed against the order of the Fast Track Court No III, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 226 of 1994 whereby he has refused the prayer of the informant and the Public Prosecutor to allow them further time to produce the Investigating Officer to be examined. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, who is the informant, that his daughter was brutally murdered by her husband within ten months of her marriage. The Investigating Officer was required to be examined as a prosecution witness but because of connivance of the defence and the learned Public Prosecutor then conducting the trial, no steps were taken over a long period to secure the attendance of the Investigating Officer as a witness. It is submitted that on complaint being made in this regard by the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor was changed and the present Public prosecutor filed an application in this regard also. The Court has noted the various adjournments granted for producing Investigating Officer for examination and ultimately directed that the Court would wait no more.

3. I have considered the matter. I feel it appropriate to point out that the Court trying a case has to see whether a witness is material witness or not. In case the Court finds that a person may be of use in unravelling the mystery of the crime, the Court under Sec.311 of CrPC has ample power to call that person to give evidence. Secondly and more importantly, Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the processes to compel appearances of witnesses. Merely because the prosecution is unable to produce its witness, the case must not end or rest there. If the Court feels that the examination of witness was in the interest of justice then the Court has to resolve to provisions for compelling the witness to appear. It cannot merely say that the witness was summoned but did not turn up. Here, we have a case of an Investigating Officer who is a police official who is not turning up for giving evidence. It may be that summons have not been duly served because of his transfer or for some other reason but that does not absolve the Court from its duty to take all appropriate steps as provided in Chapter VI of CrPC to secure his attendance. Courts are meant to adjudicate and dispense justice. Courts are not meant for mere disposal of cases and that too by default. If material witnesses are not produced by the prosecution, the Court is not helpless in the matter. The defence cannot take undue advantage of laxity or convenience of the prosecuting agency with the defence. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Court is directed to take all possible steps as envisaged under law as indicated above to secure the attendance of the Investigating Officer to appear as a prosecution witness.

4. With the above observation, the criminal revision application is allowed.