V. D. Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1988 passed in Criminal Revision No. 212 of 1987 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri has set aside the order dated 21-5-1987 passed by the trial Magistrate in Case No. 963 of 1984 which was an order closing the prosecution evidence and acquitting the revisionists for offence under Sections 323 and 324 I. P. C.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a case, initiated on a charge-sheet for the offence under Section 323/324 I. P. C. , was pending in the Court of Sri Hukum Singh, Additional Munsif Magistrate, Shikohabad. The revisional judgment shows that the case relates to the F. I. R. lodged on 19-3-1986 wherein the charge-sheet was submitted. After taking the cognizance of the case, the trial Court framed the charges against the revisionists on 5-12-1986 for offence under Sections 323 and 324 I. P. C. First date fixed for evidence was 7-1-1987 thereafter 4 other dates were fixed but no witness was examined. It was lastly on 21-5- 1987 when the prosecution evidence was closed by the trial Magistrate (Sri Hukum Singh) without recording the evidence and he acquitted the accused revisionists. Against the said order of acquittal the Revision No. 212 of 1987 was filed which was allowed on 16-8-1988 wherein the order dated 21-5-1987, passed by the Magistrate, was set aside. It is against the said revisional order that this revision is filed by the revisionists (accused persons ). The revisional order dated 16-8-1988 shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unhappy with the attitude adopted by the Magistrate in closing the prosecution evidence within 5 dates. The summoning of the prosecution witnesses and their examination is although the prime duty of the prosecution but the Court cannot sit like silent spectators. It is always the duty of the Court also to see that the necessary witnesses of the prosecution are examined by the prosecution and if they are not produced the trial Court must adopt the coercive measure to press the attendance of such witnesses. If the prosecution or any one else has withheld any necessary document and does not produce it in the Court, the trial Court is under obligation to take adequate steps to bring these documents on record. The Courts are never helpless.
(3.) IT cannot be left to the choice of the prosecutor that he may or may not produce evidence. IT is always the duty of the presiding officer of the trial Court to see that the cases are decided on the basis of the best available evidence. In the case in hand the learned Magistrate made hasty and irresponsible order in closing the prosecution evidence without making efforts for recording the evidence and acquitted the revisionists of this case without evidence. Such acquittal by the trial Magistrate deserved to be discouraged by the appropriate order, which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has done in Criminal Revision No. 212 of 1987. I see no illegality in the order dated 16-8-1988 passed in Revision No. 212 of 1987. This revision is devoid of merit hence dismissed.;