JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Five prosecution witnesses including the complainant were examined on 4-9-1964 and the case was adjourned to 22-9-1964 for consideration of the charge. On that day charges were framed under Sections 43 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The charges being explained, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Without following the procedure prescribed in Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 30-10-1964 for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. On that day the case was adjourned to 19-11-1964 on the application of both the parties. No witness for the complainant was present. The Court passed orders to the effect. "Complainant to take steps to produce his witnesses on that date". On 19-11-1964 no witness for the complainant was present. The complainant filed an application praying for time to produce his witnesses on the next date. The application was allowed. It was noted in the order-sheet that complainant undertakes to produce all his witnesses on that date, that is, 14-12-1964. On the adjourned date complainant was absent and the accused were present. Complainant's advocate filed an application for time. It was allowed and the case was adjourned to 7-1-1965. Complainant was directed to take steps to produce his witnesses on the date fixed, that is, 7-1-1965. On 7-1-1965 parties were present. Complainant filed an application for time alleging that his witnesses were engaged in cultivation. The petition was rejected as the complainant had not taken any steps to produce his witnesses. The final order passed was to the effect. "Let complainant alone be examined. Evidence of other p.ws. expunged." Against this order Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1965 was filed by the complainant in the court of the A.D.M. (J), Puri, who accepted the contention of the complainant that the evidence of other witnesses could not be expunged. He was accordingly made this reference. 2. Section 256, Sub-section (1) may be quoted - If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be tried, he shall be required to state, at the commencement of the next hearing of the case or, if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and, if so, which of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken. If he says he does so wish, the witness named by him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged. The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged. The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence. It was the duty of the Magistrate to have asked the accused, when they did not plead guilty, to state whether they wish to cross-examine any of the prosecution witnesses whose evidence has been taken. It is only if the accused express a desire to cross-examine a certain witness, then alone that witness shall be recalled and subjected to cross-examination and re-examination and shall thereafter be discharged. The section does not, in terms, prescribe as to whether the complainant would produce his witnesses for cross examination of the accused, or whether it is the duty of the Magistrate to procure their attendance. The consensus of authorities, however, is that it is duty of the Magistrate to procure the presence of those witnesses, and for that' purpose personal recognizance bonds have to be taken from those witnesses. This section may be compared with Section 252, Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion is to the effect...such Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. u/s 252, it is the duty of the complainant to produce the witnesses at that stage while when the stage u/s 256 is reached, the duty is cast on the Magistrate. 3. There are abundant authorities in support of this view (see Saghir Uddin Vs. Mt. Munni and Others, and Bepin Behari Maity Vs. Paban Sardar and Others. The Magistrate is not absolved from this duty unless the complainant undertakes to produce the witnesses and relieves him of his responsibility. The position was fully explained in a decision of this Court in Bharat Rana v. Rarna Nahak 26 C.L.T. 525 and the same was followed in Darnodar Behera v. Kubera Baliarsingh 27 C.L.T. 321. Paban Sardar and Others. The Magistrate is not absolved from this duty unless the complainant undertakes to produce the witnesses and relieves him of his responsibility. The position was fully explained in a decision of this Court in Bharat Rana v. Rarna Nahak 26 C.L.T. 525 and the same was followed in Darnodar Behera v. Kubera Baliarsingh 27 C.L.T. 321. In para 7 of 26 CLT 525, this Court observed as follows- Once a witness appears in Court and is examined-in-chief or cross-examined before charge, it is advisable to take a P.R. from him for his, appearance before Court when next required. This will avoid the necessity of summoning him again for the same purpose. Doubtless, when the complainant himself undertakes to produce the witness for the purpose of cross-examination and does need the help of the Court for his production there may not be any such necessity to take P.R. bond from him. But it is desirable to question expressly the complainant on this point and note in the order-sheet whether he under takes to produce the witnesses himself or whether he wants the Court to summon them and whether P.R. bonds should be taken from them. The aforesaid passage has my respectful concurrence. It is some what remarkable that the learned Magistrate still committed blunder in not taking P.R. bonds from the witnesses for the prosecution to appear on different dates of hearing. I would go a step further to say that the Magistrate should invariably take P.R. bonds and give special reasons in the order-sheet as to why without taking P.R. bonds he called upon the complainant to give the relevant undertaking. 4. Mr. Mohanty, however, contends that the complainant had given the undertaking to produce the witnesses and such the order of the Magistrate is justified. His contention is correct so far as it relates to order dated 19-11-1964 wherein he mentioned that the complainant undertook to produce all his witnesses. This undertaking was, however, in respect of the next date of adjournment, that is, 14-12-1964. On that date the complainant did not give any further undertaking. The Magistrate merely passed an order that the complainant was to take steps to produce his witnesses on 7-1-1965. This order is legal. The Magistrate shirked his responsibilities and put those illegally on the complainant. On that date the complainant did not give any further undertaking. The Magistrate merely passed an order that the complainant was to take steps to produce his witnesses on 7-1-1965. This order is legal. The Magistrate shirked his responsibilities and put those illegally on the complainant. The complainant was therefore not responsible for the non-appearance of other prosecution witnesses on 7-1-1965 and that the order expunging their evidence cannot be upheld. 5. For reasons, already stated, the reference is accepted and the order of the Magistrate dated 7-1-1965 expunging the evidence of the four witnesses is quashed and he is directed to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.