Hamid Hussain, J. - (1.) THIS is a Government appeal against the order dated September 15, 1971 passed by the Sub-Divisional Ma gistrate, Lalitpur.
(2.) THE respondents 7 in number were being prosecuted for offences under Section 147, 323 and 325, I.P.C. The respondents appeared in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and their statements were recorded and thereafter charges were framed against the respondents on August 11. 1971 and the Sub- Divisional Magistrate fixed Septem ber 9, 1971 for the production of the prosecution evidence for which he directed the witnesses to be summoned. On Sept. 9,1971 respondents were present but the witnesses did not appear and no report in that regard was received and therefore the Magistrate fixed September 15, 1971 and directed that the witnesses be produced on that date and notice be sent to the S.O. (Station Officer, Police Station). On Sep tember 15, 1971 the case came up before the Magistrate and an ap plication was moved on behalf of the prosecution for adjournment of the case or the ground that only one witness was present and the complainant could not attend court on that day. This request for adjournment to another date for production of the prosecution wit nesses was made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on September 15, 1977 on the report of the same date of the Station Officer. There was also a report of the Constable that the complainant had gone to his sister's house and therefore another date may be given. The impugn ed order shows that the Magistrate took exception to the complainant having preferred to visit his sister's house rather than to attend the court. From this the Magistrate inferred that the prosecution had no interest in the case and accordingly he dismissed the case consign ed the file to the record room. Sri A. Kazmi, learned Assistant Gov ernment Advocate has referred to the provisions of Section 251-A of the Code of criminal Procedure which provide that the Magistrate shall summon the witnesses. In the. instant case the Magistrate on August 11, 1971 did order the summoning of the witnesses. Accord ing to the learned counsel if the witnesses did not appear in court in response to the summons, the learned Magistrate had ample power to compel the attendance of the prosecution witnesses for recording their evidence and deciding the case on merits and the learned Ma gistrate had no option in this regard to short circuit the case by dis missing it. Sri K.B. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents has con tended that by on order dated September 9, 1971 the Magistrate had directed the notice to be issued to the Station Officer whose duty it was to produce the witnesses in court. It is true that the investi gating agency is required to produce the witnesses, but it is equally incumbent on a Magistrate in a case which has been initiated on a police report that the Magistrate should take suitable measures to procure the attendance of the witnesses after the accused had pleaded not guilty and that plea has been recorded by the Magistrate. In the circumstances as discussed above the impugned order of the Ma gistrate dated September 15, 1971 is an illegal order and must be set aside. In this appeal preferred by the State, the memorandum of ap peal contains only two grounds which are in the general form, that the acquittal is unwarranted in law and on facts and circumstances of the case and the order of acquittal is based on findings which are against the weight of evidence on record. Such general grounds in the State appeal have been depricated by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil, Deo Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 121. The obser vations of the Supreme Court in this regard are that: "A memorandum of appeal is meant to be a succinct statement of the grounds upon which the appellant proposes to support the appeal. It is a notice to the Court that such and such specific grounds are proposed to be urged on behalf of the appellant, as also a notice to the respondent that he should be ready to meet those specific grounds. A memorandum of appeal with a bald ground like the one quoted above is of no help to any of the par ties or to the Court. It may have the merit of relieving the per son responsible for drawing up the ground of appeal, of applying his mind to the judgment under appeal and its weak points, but this slight advantage, if it is so, is very much out-weighed by the serious disadvantage to the parties to the litigation and the Court which is to hear the appeal. Such a bald statement of grounds leaves the door wide open for all kinds of submissions, thus, tending to waste the time of the Court, and taking the res pondents by surprise........ Such a practice if any, deserves to be discontinued and a more efficient way of drawing up grounds of appeal, has to be developed."
(3.) IN the result, the State appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Magistrate dated September 15, 1971 is set aside and the case which has been consigned to the record room shall be processed in accordance with law. The case is accordingly remanded with the direction that this case shall be tried by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who has passed the impugned order dated September 15, 1971.;