Judgment Hombe Gowda, C.J.- This appeal filed by the State under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, Aurad, in C.C. No. 47/2 of 1967 on his file. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent who was charged and tried for an offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that on 9th February, 1967 at about 5 p.m. the respondent was driving a bus bearing No. MYI 3135 from Kusnoor to Bidar in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a cart driven by the deceased Maharudrappa and as a result of this collision Maharudrappa died on the spot and therefore, the respondent was liable to answer a charge for an offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Though the incident took place on 9th February, 1967, charge-sheet against the respondent was placed on 25th May, 1967. No witnesses were in attendance and therefore at the instance of the Prosecutor, the case was adjourned to 25th July, 1967. On that day, that is, 25th July, 967, one witness was present in Court and he was examined. He did not support the case of the prosecution. The Prosecutor prayed for issue of warrants to four other witnesses pleading his inability to bring them to the Court. The Court issued bailable warrants and posted the case to 18th August, 1967. On 18th August, 1967, no witness for the prosecution was present. The bailable warrants that were issued at the instance of the Prosecutor were handed over to the police for service. The Police neither served them on the witnesses nor returned the warrants as unserved. The learned Magistrate refused to grant an adjournment to the Prosecutor and closed the case and on the evidence adduced entered acquittal in favour of respondent. It is the correctness and legality of this judgment that it challenged in this appeal. It is clear from the narration of facts above that the prosecution was not at all diligent. Once the Prosecutor prayed for warrants and secured them it was the duty of the prosecution to serve the warrants on the several witnesses end bring and examine them in Court. It is clear from the narration of facts above that the prosecution was not at all diligent. Once the Prosecutor prayed for warrants and secured them it was the duty of the prosecution to serve the warrants on the several witnesses end bring and examine them in Court. The explanation offered by the prosecution that because the Police were otherwise busy, they could not serve the warrants against the several prosecution witnesses, is far from satisfactory. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in refusing to grant an adjournment to the prosecution and proceeding to pronounce the judgment on the material placed on record. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. S.V.S.-----Appeal dismissed.