The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for securing the presence of witnesses and the availability of coercive methods under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout dated 29.3.2001 vide which the evidence of the prosecution has been closed.

2. Shri Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is palpably erroneous. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has closed the evidence by order despite the fact that the witnesses were served. He submitted that once the service was effected upon the witnesses then the learned trial Court should have adopted coercive method for securing the presence of the witnesses but he has no right to close the evidence. He further submitted that the petitioner has not to gain by delaying the trial.

3. On the other hand Shri T.S. Sangha, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 submitted that the charges in this case were framed on 29.7.1999 and, therefore, sufficient opportunities were given to the prosecution. He submitted that the complainant in this case is dealing the proceedings only to harass the respondents. He contended that when the witnesses are not appearing in the Court despite effecting the service then the Court has no alternative remedy but to close the evidence by Court order.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The impugned order reads as under :-

"Four PWs examined. PWs Kashmir Singh and Har Singh given up by the prosecution, being won over. PWs Modan Singh, Mohan Lal, Karamjit Singh and Harbans are not present despite service. Application on behalf of PW Nirmal Singh has been moved for dispensing with his presence which is opposed. File perused. Charge against the accused was framed on 29.7.1999. Thereafter a large number of opportunities have been afforded to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. Only four witnesses have been examined. On the last date of hearing i.e. 18.1.2001 PW Sajjan Singh Cheema DSP alongwith Bachittar Singh and Joginder Singh were present and DSP Sajjan Singh has not come present. Today is last opportunity for the prosecution to conclude its evidence and as such I do not find any justification for further adjournment of the case as such prosecution evidence is closed by order. To come up for statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.4.2001."

5. The impugned order is palpably erroneous. As per the impugned order Sajjan Singh alongwith Bachhittar Singh and Joginder Singh were present on the last date of hearing i.e. 18.1.2001. I have also perused the order dated 18.1.2001. As per this order, the statement of Sajjan Singh Dy. S.P., Bachhittar Singh and Joginder Singh were not recorded on the ground of peacemeal evidence. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case for 29.3.2001 and it was ordered that it was the last opportunity to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. The prosecution effected the service on PWs namely Modan Singh, Mohan Singh, Karam Singh and Harbans Singh but despite effecting service, these PWs did not appear. The witnesses who were present on the last date of hearing namely Sajjan Singh Dy. S.P., Bachhittar Singh and Joginder Singh, have also not come present. The learned Magistrate instead of securing the presence of the witnesses closed the evidence. The procedure for securing the presence of the witnesses and accused has been laid down in Sections 87 to 89 Cr.P.C. which read as under :-

"87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. - A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest :-

(a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or

(b) if at such time he fails to appear and the