M. C. JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision-petition is treated as an application u/s 482 Cr. P. C. By the order under challenge the evidence of prosecution-witness Ramesh Chandra was closed. It may be stated that Ramesh Chandra was present in the court on 27th February, 1987. On that day his statement was not recorded and an application was moved by the accused-person that against the order dated 17. 2. 87 a revision has already been filed and in case his statement would be recorded the revision petition would become infructuous, and thereafter record of the case went in revision. On return of the record warrant of arrest was Issued against Ramesh Chandra and the learned Public Prosecutor wanted to get the warrant served or in any case produce him, as the Asstt. Public Prosecutor failed to produce Ramesh Chandra on 21. 3. 87. It appears that his evidence was closed and no opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce him. He is the most; material witness in the case. As per the prosecution it was he who made payment of money. It is true that the case was pending for more than 10 years but that is no reason for closing the prosecution evidence in the manner it was done by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly this application is allowed and the order closing the evidence of Ramesh Chandra is set aside and it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall give opportunity to the prosecution for production of the witness Ramesh Chandra. The prosecution shall see that the witness is served if the process is issued by the court. The Magistrate shall give nearer date of not more than 10 days and he shall expedite the trial of the case after recording the statement of Ramesh Chandra. .;