Nesargi, J.-The State has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum Cantonment, on 17th September, 1970. 2. The complainant Mahadev Parashuram Shahapurkar had filed information to the Police on 9th August, 1970 that between. 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. on 8th August, 1970 somebody had entered into his house by opening the latch of the door and. had committed theft of copper pots and sarees. The Police took up investigation and on the very next day, i.e., on roth August, 1970 arrested the respondent Shanta alias Savitri when she was in front of the shop of one dealer in old utensils and seized certain copper pots and sarees from a basket that was on her head. Then they put up a charge-sheet against her alleging that offences under sections 454, 380 or in the alternative under section 411, Indian Penal Code had been committed by her. The respondent-accused was also produced along with the charge-sheet. The Magistrate saw that copies of documents referred to in section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code were furnished to the accused-respondent and after perusing the papers, framed charges for offences under sections 454, 380 or in the alternative under section 4n, Indian Penal Code. The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty. The Magistrate fixed the date for evidence as on 1st September, 1970 and adjourned the case to that date. On 1st September, 1970, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a memo. requesting the Court to issue summons to the complainant and other witnesses. The learned Magistrate passed an order as follows: “Accused produced in custody. No witnesses are kept present. Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for summons to complainant. Issue Summons. Returnable by nth September, 1970. All witnesses should be kept present. Remanded till then.” On 11th September, 1970 Mahadev, the complainant was present and he was examined as P.W. 1. The case was adjourned to 17th September, 1970. On that day one Narayan, a panch witness was present and he was examined as P.W. 2. The Assistant Public Prosecution requested for an adjournment on the ground that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shahapur, was not present as he was engaged in accidental death case, but the learned Magistrate refused to grant adjournment, and closed the case for the prosecution and acquitted the accused under sub-section (11) of section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The Assistant Public Prosecution requested for an adjournment on the ground that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shahapur, was not present as he was engaged in accidental death case, but the learned Magistrate refused to grant adjournment, and closed the case for the prosecution and acquitted the accused under sub-section (11) of section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code. It is this order of acquittal that is challenged in this appeal. 3. On 1st September, 1970, which was the first day fixed for trial of the case, the prosecution prayed for issue of summons not only to the complainant but also to the witnesses for the prosecution as is clear for the memo. filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on that day. The learned Magistrate directed issue of summons only to the complainant, probably through oversight. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 1st September, 1970 does not disclose that he did, for any reason, reject the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses. That order, therefore, is not according to law. The learned Magistrate ought to have directed issue of summons to the prosecution witnesses also. The records show that even in spite of this order passed by the Magistrate, directing issue of summons to the complainant, no summons were actually issued either to the complainant or to any witness. In spite of that fact, the prosecution appears to have kept the complainant present on the next date of hearing, i.e., on nth September, 1970. The request made by the prosecution to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses also stood even on nth September, 1970 because the same had not been rejected by the learned Magistrate on 1st September, 1970. In the result, it is manifest that the prosecution was not expected to keep the prosecution witnesses present without summons being issued to them. If the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 1st September, 1970 is construed to mean that the request for issue of summons to the prosecution witnesses was rejected, we are clearly of the opinion that the Magistrate could not have passed such an order on 1st September, 1970, which was evidently the first day fixed for trial of the case. Section 251-A(7) states that on the date so fixed for trial (as provided in sub-section (6)) the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution................Production of witnesses by the prosecution can be by making a request for issuing summons to the witnesses or by the prosecution itself keeping the witnesses present without making a request for issue of summons. When the prosecution wants the Court to issue summons to its witnesses, it is, in our opinion, incumbent of the Court to grant that request and direct issue of summons to the prosecution witnesses. The learned Magistrate, instead of acting in the manner narrated above, has acted in violation of the provisions of law in not directing issue of summons to the prosecution witnesses though such a request was specifically made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on 1st September, 1970. Therefore, we are of the view that it was not right on the part of the learned Magistrate to prut the. blame on the prosecution for not keeping witnesses present on 17th September, 1970. That goes to show that the Magistrate could not have closed the case for the prosecution and proceed to pass an order of acquittal under sub-section (11) of section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In view of the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum Cantonment on 17th September, 1970 in C.C. No. 1116 of 1970 and direct the records to be remitted to the lower Court for disposal of the case according to law. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed.