1. The respondents herein are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.418 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam. The charges were framed against the accused for the offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Sections 468, 471, 485, 486 and 487 I.P.C., for illegal possession of spurious liquors. After framing the charges, the case was pending for more than a year as the witnesses were not produced by the prosecution. Hence, the learned Magistrate had passed an order on 24.01.2007 acquitting the accused/respondents herein under Section 248 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said acquittal, the State has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that after the charges being framed, the learned Magistrate, without recording the evidence of the witnesses, erroneously acquitted all the accused under Section 248 Cr.P.C. Though summons were issued on 23.12.2005 to produce the witnesses on the subsequent dates, as List Witness No.1, who is police officer, was transferred from Erode to Villupuram District and also subsequently due to some local body election, the witnesses, who are the police officials, could not be produced. Though List Witness Nos.3 to 5 were produced before the trial Court on 28.07.2006, as List Witness No.1 was not present, L.Ws.3 to 5 were not examined. On 18.08.2006, though L.W.2 was produced before the Court, due to Advocates Boycott, the trial Court had not chosen to proceed with the trial. The learned Magistrate had issued a warrant against L.W.1 for his non-appearance on 17.11.2006 and L.W.1 had filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, and obtained stay against the warrant issued by the learned Magistrate. Further, on 16.12.2006, the prosecution had produced only List Witness Nos.7 and 9, since other witnesses were held up in the President Bandobust duty, but those witnesses were not examined by the trial Court. Ultimately, the trial Court had acquitted the accused on 24.01.2007 without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. A memo signed by the Inspector of Police, P.E.W. Gobichettipalayam, Erode, showing the particulars with hearing dates was filed.

3. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that several details, which were mentioned in the memo filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, do not find place in the docket entry of the Court records. As per the entries made, the prosecution had not produced the witnesses before the trial Court. In spite of the warrant being issued against List Witness No.1 by the trial Court on 17.11.2006 and the subsequent hearings, on 08.12.2006, 16.12.2006, 03.01.2007 and 24.01.2007, witnesses were not produced by the prosecution. Only in the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused under Section 248 Cr.P.C. and such acquittal is also permissible as per the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1980 LW (Crl.) 187 [State V. Veerappan and others].

4. The attention of this Court is drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to paragraph No.22 of the said decision which reads as follows:-

"22. After carefully considering all the aforesaid decisions and the views expressed therein, we are of the view that if the prosecution had made an application for the issue of summons to its witnesses either under S.242(2) or 254(2) of the Crl.P.C., it is the duty of the Court to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the powers given to it under the Crl.P.C., as already indicated by us and if still the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account of pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the Court had given it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then the Court, being left with