The Magistrate has the authority to summon the prosecution witnesses and enforce their attendance if they refuse to appear on the date fixed for their evidence, but the Magistrate is not required to adjourn the trial indefinitely to accommodate the prosecution's convenience.

GURDEV SINGH, J.

1. This is a State-appeal against the order of Shri G.R. Gogiam, Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, dated 22nd October, 1964, acquitting the respondent Kali Ram of charges under Sections 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code without having recorded the entire evidence that the prosecution had to produce. The relevant facts are as follows:

On 8th September, 1963, Gurmit Singh, a resident of Bhangali Kalan, district Amritsar, who had brought a dancing party to the fair at Raikot in the District of Ludhiana, lodged a report at the local police station complaining that the respondent Kali Ram had attacked him with a knife, and getting hold of Shrimati Nishi, a member of the dancing party, had caught her by the breasts. On due investigation, the respondent was prosecuted, and in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 251A of the Criminal Procedure Code, charges under Sections 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against him by a Magistrate First Class at Ludhiana in 29th October, 1963.

2. On Kali Ram pleading not guilty the case was adjourned to 12th November, 1963, with the direction that the prosecution evidence be summoned for that day. The respondent, however, failed to appear at the next hearing. Non-bailable warrants for his arrest were thereupon ordered to issue for 26th November, 1963, Those warrants, however, could not be executed for lack of complete address. The respondents surety was called upon to furnish the correct address, and the case was transferred to the Court of Shri G. R. Gogia, Magistrate First Class. On 6th December, 1963, non-bailable warrants at the address given by the surety were issued. They remained unexecuted. Information in the meantime having been received that the accused had joined the army, attempts were made to secure his attendance in Court, but the military authorities informed the Magistrate that he could not be spared due to emergency. This necessitated several adjournments and it was only on 12th September, 1964, that the accused (respondent) appeared in Court. The learned Magistrate happened to be on election duty and, accordingly, the case was not taken up that day and was adjourned to 16th September, 1964. Dr. Dharampal, one of the prosecution witnesses, who was present, was asked to attend the Court on the adjourned hearing, and direction was given by the Duty Magistrate that the remaining prosecution evidence be summoned. On 16th September. 1964, when the case was taken up it was found that the case-property was not available. Accordingly further proceedings were adjourned to 26th September 1964. Dr. Dharampal, who was in attendance, was directed to appear on that day, and summons were ordered to issue to the remaining witnesses of the prosecution.

3. On 26th September, 1964, the statement of Dr. Dharam Pal alone was recorded as no other prosecution witness was present and it was found that even summons issued to them had not been received back. The Magistrate thereupon directed fresh summons for the prosecution witnesses to issue for 14th October. 1964.

On the adjourned hearing, the case was taken up by Shri Gogia, Magistrate First Class, to whom it had been transferred in the meantime. As none of the prosecution witnesses appeared that day, they were ordered to be summoned again for 22nd October, 1964. Again, it was found that the summons have not been received back and the prosecution having failed to produce any witness, the learned Magistrate refused to grant any further adjournment, closed the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution had not established its case against the accused.

4. In assailing the order of the respondents acquittal, Mr. M. R. Chhiber, who appears for the State, has contended that the failure of the prosecution to produce its witnesses did not empower the Magistrate to close its evidence and acquit the accused, as it was the duty of the Magistrate to procure the atten