( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against the order of the learned Magistrate at Ranaghat dated 15th February, 1963 whereby he acquitted the accused persons charged under Section 324, Indian Penal Code read with Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, under Section 251a (XI) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What happened is that the present petitioner who is the complainant lodged a first information report with the police station Nrisinhapur on the 5th July, 1962 on the allegation that Basudeb had assaulted him and Dulal inflicted a blow on his chin with a hesua causing bleeding injuries. After investigation the police submitted challan and the trial commenced before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Kishore Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Magistrate passed the order of acquittal without taking any steps for procuring the attendance of the witnesses on whom the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons. His contention is that when once the Magistrate passed the order for issuing the summons it was his duty to pursue the matter and to see whether the service had really been effected and if not already effected what fu