JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is & reference by Sri R. C. Nigam, Additional District Magistrate, Pilibhit, on the ground that the orders of the Magistrate dated 13-12-1963 and 16-12-1963 were wrong and that he committed an illegality against the provisions of Cl. 7 of Sec. 251-A, Cr. P. C. 2. It appears that the A. P. P. first moved an application on 13-12-1963 before the Magistrate that there being four cases in the court of the S.D. M., Pooranpur, to which also he was attached, the case before S.D. M., Bisalpur, may be adjourned for next Monday, i.e., 16th of December, 1963. S.D. M., Bisalpur, passed the order that the case could not be adjourned and that some arrangement might be made. The application was then sent to the Public Prosecutor, who wrote on it: "All the A. P. Ps. are busy in their respective courts. It would be very kind of you if you just accommodate me and adjourn the case for Monday in the interest of the proper conduct of case." 3. The Magistrate did not thereupon straightaway acquit the accused, but had the witnesses called by names. None of them appeared. In those circumstances it was not possible for the Magistrate to proceed with the examination of the witnesses himself and he passed an order acquitting the accused. 4. The Additional District Magistrate has relied on the provisions of Sec. 251-A (7) which runs as follows:- "On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution: Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination." 5. This sub-Section clearly provides that the Magistrate has to take all such evidence as might be produced in support of the prosecution. But when the witnesses were not present and did not appear when called and there was nobody on behalf of the prosecution, the Magistrate could not be said to have acted illegally if he closed the case and acquitted the accused. The decision of this Court in Lala Dhanpat Rai v. State, 1959 Cr. LJ 806, does not apply to the present case. The decision of this Court in Lala Dhanpat Rai v. State, 1959 Cr. LJ 806, does not apply to the present case. All that was held in that case was that the Magistrate could not insist before them that the moment that they took up a case the Public Prosecutor must immediately appear before them. Mulla, J. further held that in the court had tried to contract the Public Prosecutor and he was found absent the complainant could be said to be absent. In the present case the Magistrate had contacted the A. P. P. and also the Public Prosecutor, even then the Magistrate would have proceeded with the case if the witnesses had been present but he was helpless when the witnesses did not appear when called. Since no request was made to the court for any assistance to procure the attendance of the witnesses, the Magistrate could not be said to have committed any illegality if he thereupon acquitted the accused. The accused, who may for ought we know be found later on to be quite innocent, has also a right to be protected from harassment by unnecessary adjournments because of the number of Assistant Public Prosecutors to look after the cases being insufficient or for want of satisfactory arrangement by the Public Prosecutor to look after State cases in the courts of the Magistrates. It is high time that the District Magistrates and the Additional District Magistrates while exercising revisionary jurisdiction realised that the Magistrates had to administer justice without fear or favour and were not to permit themselves to be browbeaten by the Public Prosecutors. 6. The reference is entirely misconceived and is rejected. Reference rejected.