BHARGAVA, J.—Since these two appeals by the State raise a common question of law, they are being disposed of by this one judgment.

2. In appeal No. 666 of 1963, respondent Nandkishore was prosecuted under sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the respondent while driving truck No. RJA 165 rashly and negligently caused injuries with it to a cow which fell down on the ground and died two days after. Since the case was instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate first Class Rajgarh adopted the procedure as is provided under sec. 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A charge was framed against the accused on 19th October, 1962. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution witnessess on 4-12-62, 15-1-63, 12-3-1963 and 19-3-1963, but the prosecution failed to produce any witness. The learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence and observed that there was no duty of the Magistrate to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses because there was no such provision under sec. 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection he also referred to a decision of the Calcutta Hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document