The duty of the court in ensuring fair trial and fair consideration of the prosecution case as well as the defense pleas, and the importance of the prosecution producing all necessary evidence before the court.

1. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent, accused in C. C. No. 1527 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thaliparamba, who stood charged for offences under S.279 and 337 IPC. and S.89(a) and (b) read with S.112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The prosecution case was that on 24-10-1979 at about 9-15 p. m., on the public road at Kanhirangad in Kuttieri village, the respondent drove lorry KLD.1492 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and caused the lorry to dash against Vammayeppilli Chacko who thereby sustained simple injuries and the respondent did not give timely intimation to the police nor attempt to secure medical attention to the injured. The injured, Cw.1 himself gave first information to the police on the basis of which Cw.10 registered a case. Cw.11 investigated the case and laid the charge sheet. In the charge, as many as 11 witnesses had been cited. Of them, Cw.1 was the injured and Cws. 2 to 7 eye -witnesses. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the lorry was cited as CW. 8 and the doctor who examined the injured and issued wound certificate was cited as C. W. 9. C. Ws. 3 to 5 were examined by the prosecution as pws.1 to 3. These witnesses stated that they did not see the occurrence and were cross-examined by the prosecutor by leave of court. No other witness was produced by the prosecution. Thereupon the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court did not discharge its duty and function as enjoined by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) and that has led to failure of justice which has to be rectified. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the prosecution did not make a sincere attempt to produce the witnesses or to have summons served on them or to secure their presence in court and therefore this court should not interfere with the acquittal.

4. This is a summons case triable in accordance with the provisions in Chapter XX of the Code. Under S.251 of the Code when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence shall be stated to him and his plea shall be taken. As to what should be done when the accused pleads guilty is dealt with in S.252 and 253 of the Code. According to sub-section (1) of S.254, where there is no conviction under S.252 or 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produced in his defence. Sub-section (2) states that the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

5. We may now notice the relevant provisions in Chapter XIX dealing with trial of warrant cases. S.238 deals with preliminary steps. S.239 empowers the court to pass an order of discharge where the charge is found to be groundless. S.240 deals with framing of charge. Under S.241 the plea admitting guilt may be accepted and the conviction recorded. Where trial is to take place, sub-section (1) of S.242 requires that the Magistrate shall fix a date for examination of the witnesses. Sub-section (2) empowers the Magistrate, on the application of the prosecution to issue summons to witnesses. Sub-section (3) states that on that date the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Part B of the Chapter deals with cases instituted otherwise than on police report. Sub-section (1) of S.244 requires that the Magistrate shall take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Sub-section (2) empowers the Magistrate on the application of the prosecution, to issue summons to witnesses. The parallel provisions in