( 1 ) QUESTIONS and/or errors that surface in this acquittal appeal are three fold Firstly Whether the trial Court was justified in passing the order of acquittal in summons triable case without taking evidence referred to in Sec. 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ? Secondly Whether the trial Court has conducted trial proceedings in a manner ordinarily expected of the Court of law doing justice Thirdly Whether the case disposed off in a hot haste can be said to be a case decided and justice done ?

( 2 ) TO this short answer would be had the trial Court been little watchful and considerate the mishap of acquittal could have been safely avoided. Be it remembered that judicial function is a matter of clean conscience to be performed with the sense of diligence deduction and social orientation in light of awareness only and that such a hurry and flurry as noticed in the present case in disposing of the case never enhances the prestige of the Court doing justice.

( 3 ) THE above acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29/09/1980 passed in Summary Case No. 3843 of 1979 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bardoli (for short hereinafter referred to as `trial Court) wherein the respondent-accused came to be tried for the offence punishable under Secs. 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code r. w. Secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 4 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that the incident took place on 5/04/1979 at 8-30 hours in the limit of the village of Bajipura near Sumul Dairy when the respondent-accused Lalit Mohan driving his truck bearing No. GTC 5632 in a rash and negligent manner collided with the Motor Cycle No. GRB 551 coming from the opposite direction driven by Nitinkumar Dalpatbhai Mehta. As a result of the said accident both the scooterist and the pillian-rider Maganbhai Lallubhai fell down and sustained serious in juries. Ultimately on a complaint being filed and case investigated a charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court on 14/11/1979 against the accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 279 and 338 of the E P. Code and Secs. 112 and 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 5 ) IN this summons triable case the plea of the accused was recorded on 24/06/1980 whereupon be pleaded not guilty to the charge During the trial prosecution has examined the following witnesses :- (1) Panch Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai P. W. 1 (Scene of offence Panchnama produced at Exh. 5) (2) Dalpatbhai Jivarajbhai P. W. 2 (father of injured Nitinkumar ). (3) Bhalchandra Durlabhbhai P. W. 3.

( 6 ) AFTER the examination of aforesaid P. Ws. was over the prosecution submitted an application to the trial Court for : (I) examining injured Nitinkumar on commission (as provided under Sec. 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) as he was being operated upon and was in Hospital at Bombay; and (II) adjourning the case as some of the prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined. This came to be rejected and the trial Court proceeded ahead to acquit the accused by dubbing the case as 10 MONTHS OLD. Hence this appeal by the State.

( 7 ) MR. Dipak Trivedi the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has voiced just and legitimate grievance by submitting that a fair trial has been denied to the prosecution by shutting off the material evidence being recorded and abruptly terminating the trial proceeding acquitting the accused. Adds Mr. Trivedi that this is nothing but a case of failure of justice and the matter deserves to be remanded with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the same after affording prosecution adequate opportunity to examine witnesses. As against this Mr. D. I. Desai the learned Advocate appearing for the accused has submitted that the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in not granting application of prosecution for examining witness on Commission. In the alternate he submitted that in any event this is mat a case which should be