- (1.) This is a Government appeal against an order of acquittal. It appears that on some first information report lodged by one Purnendu Sur the Police made an investigation and submitted a challan against the Respondents. The Magistrate proceeded with the trial under, Section 251A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and framed charges against the Respondents under Section 251A(3) of the Code. Thereafter, after some adjournments the case was fixed for evidence on September 10, 1968. No prosecution witness was present on that date. The Court Sub-Inspector made an application for warrant of arrest against Purnendu Sur who did not appear even though he was summoned. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the Respondents presumably under Section 251A (11) of the Code. The State has thereafter preferred this appeal.
(2.) It is true that on several dates between the date when the charge was framed and September 10, 1968, the prosecution could not produce evidence in support of the prosecution case and the last date fixed was September 10, 1968. On that date too no prosecution evidence was produced. It was found that summons on informant Purnendu Sur was served, but he was also not present. The Court Sub-Inspector made a prayer for warrant of arrest against him. The learned Magistrate should have, under the circumstance, issued the warrant of arrest against Purnendu Sur and fixed a further date for the prosecution evidence.
(3.) He should not have, by rejecting this prayer, at once acquitted the Respondents. For the interest of justice, though the case is much too old now, this order of acquittal should be set aside.;