JUDGMENT :- The matter that arises for consideration in these appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused is whether it is appropriate to apply S. 251-A(11) Cri. P.C. and acquit the accused in case where the prosecution has neglected to produce witnesses in support of the prosecution case as required under S. 251-A(7) Cr. P.C. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Kulitalai, who tried the case, observed in his judgment, that notwithstanding the peremptory order issued by the court declining to grant further adjournments, the prosecution was not ready with its evidence on the date of hearing and that therefore the accused were entitled to an acquittal under S. 251-A(11), Cr. P.C.

The learned Public Prosecutor, who has appealed to this court, against the order of acquittal, has submitted that such a procedure of acquittal, for want of diligence on the part of prosecution, in the matter of producing its witnesses is permissible in summons cases, under S. 247 Cr. P.C. as has been pointed out in A. Reddi v. S. Goundan, 1942 Mad WN Gr. 77 : (AIR 1942 Mad 594), but the position is quite different in the case of the trial of warrant cases, wherein the c