JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against an order dated 1-1-1968 passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Kodala, discharging the members of the second party (opposite party herein) u/s 119, Code of Criminal Procedure, in a proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. A proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, was initiated by the Officer-in-charge, Kodala P.S., on 16-11-1966 on the information lodged by the first party (Petitioner herein) that the second party members were stealing the cocoanuts from his trees. After service of the copy of the order u/s 112, Code of Criminal Procedure on the second party, the case was taken up for hearing u/s 117, Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court below on several dates. At last on, 1-1-1968 the Court below passed the impugned order stating therein that the first party was given sufficient opportunities to produce his witnesses in Court but every time on some pretext or other he avoided to produce them. The Court therefore arrived at a finding that the first party started the said proceeding only to harass the members of the second party, and so it recorded the impugned order discharging the second party members u/s 119, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Court below acted illegally in asking the first party to produce his witnesses, as this was a case initiated on police report and it was the business of the police to produce the witnesses in Court, and the Court accordingly should have directed the police to produce his witnesses to prove the allegation against the second party. 4. As stated earlier, the proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure against the members of the second party was initiated on the report filed by the first party at the police station. In the prosecution report submitted by the Officer-in-charge of Kodala P.S. on 9-11-1966 names of witnesses were not mentioned and column 5 meant for the same was left blank. It is seen from the impugned order that the Officer-in-charge informed the Court that parties themselves would produce their witnesses. It is evident from the revision petition filed in this Court that the Petitioner was given several chances to produce his witnesses in support of his allegation against the second party. It is seen from the impugned order that the Officer-in-charge informed the Court that parties themselves would produce their witnesses. It is evident from the revision petition filed in this Court that the Petitioner was given several chances to produce his witnesses in support of his allegation against the second party. A perusal of the order-sheet of the Court below shows that since 1-6-1967, the first date fixed by the Court below for examining p.ws. till the passing of the impugned order on (sic) no witnesses could be produced in Court to support the allegations against the second party though several dates during that period of seven months were fixed for that purpose. 5. u/s 117, Code of Criminal Procedure the Court has to enquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken against a party, and for that it has to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Such enquiry shall be made, as ready as practicable, in accordance with the provisions for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases (Section 117(2)). Section 244, in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the trial of summons cases, provides that if the Magistrate does not convict the accused on his own admission of accusation u/s 243 or in case no such admission is made by the accused, then the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant, if any, and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take such evidence as he produces in his defence. The Magistrate may if he thinks fit on the application of the complainants or accused issue summons to witnesses directing them to attend or to produce any document or other things (Section 244(2)). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the parties concerned either to produce witnesses or to take steps through Court for their production in an enquiry u/s 117, Code of Criminal Procedure, as the provisions u/s 244 are applicable to such an enquiry. The police who initiated this proceeding did not furnish the names of witnesses who could support the allegations made against the second party. They absolved themselves of their responsibility by informing the Court that the parties themselves would produce their own witnesses. The police who initiated this proceeding did not furnish the names of witnesses who could support the allegations made against the second party. They absolved themselves of their responsibility by informing the Court that the parties themselves would produce their own witnesses. The first party, on whose report such a proceeding was started, could not of his own produce any witnesses nor did he take any steps through Court to secure the attendance in order to substantiate his allegation against the second party, though several opportunities for the same were afforded to him by the Court. As no witness was produced to support the said allegations, even though the Court granted several adjournments for the purpose in the course of seven months, these allegations could not be proved against the second party in the enquiry u/s 117, Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the Magistrate was justified in discharging them u/s 119, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. I do not therefore find any merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed