Judgment Ahmed Ali Khan, J.-This appeal is filed against the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, Koppal, passed on 21st July, 1969 in C.C.No. 72 of 1969 on his file. By that judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused who are respondents 1 to 6 respectively before this Court. The accused persons were charged for an offence under section 55 of the Mysore Irrigation Act 1965, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. It appears from the record that on the date of hearing viz., on 21st July, 1969 as the prosecution witnesses were not kept present in the Court, the Magistrate made an order of acquittal which is in appeal before us. Mr. Byra Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the prosecution witnesses were not present in the Court, the Magistral could have resorted to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure for procuring their presence in the Court. But in the present case, the learned Magistrate acted in haste and, without giving reasonable and fair opportunity to the prosecution, he passed the order of acquittal. It is true as argued by Mr. M.M. Jagirdar, learned Counsel for the respondents that the Assistant Public Prosecutor ought not to have made a representation which he had, before the Court, The Court is apt to take serious view of such sort of re presentations more so, when the Assistant Public Prosecutor had sumbitted before the Court on 13th June, 1969, that he would keep the witnesses present in the Court. But the fact that it is clear from the record that all the prosecution witnesses viz., C.Ws. 1 to 4 were duly served, vide the order sheet dated 28th April, 1969. Mr. Jagirdar contended that it is not clear from the record whether the prosecution witnesses were present in the Court on that day or not. If they were present, it was the duty of the Magistrate to bind them over for the next date of hearing. On the other hand, if they were not present, and summons were duly served on them warrants whether bailable or non-bailable as the Magistrate thought fit should have been issued. In either case, the order of the Magistrate directing the prosecution to keep the prosecution witnesses present on the next date of hearing is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In either case, the order of the Magistrate directing the prosecution to keep the prosecution witnesses present on the next date of hearing is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true, as argued on behalf of the State that the Court has the responsibility to see that justice was done after a fair trial. But at the same time law require the State to undertake the burden of prosecuting the offenders in public interest to ensure law and order and not to make such sort of representations before the Court which have been made in this case on behalf of the State. Since we are of the opinion that the order of the Magistrate as mentioned above transgresses the express provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trying Magistrate. The case is remitted to the Court below. The Magistrate will now dispose it of in accordance with law. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed.