Judgment.- This is an appeal filed by the State challenging an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Thiruvalla, in a case where the accused-respondent was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338, Indian Penal Code and sections 89 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The case against the respondent was that he on 29th January, 1975 at about 9.30 P.M. drove a taxi-car KLA 4771 in a rash and negligent manner along the Thiruvalla-Kozhancherry public road and at a place near Muttuman at Pulladu dashed against P.W. 1 who was passing along the road as a result of which he was thrown into the held nearby and sustained injuries on his head, leg and other parts of the body The car also hit against P.W. 2 and he also sustained injuries. On the first information statement (Exhibit P-1) given by P.W. 1, a case was registered and on the conclusion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the respondent for the offences mentioned above 3. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws. 1 and 2, the injured in the case, P.Ws. 3 and 4, eye-witnesses to 1 be occurrence, P.W. 5, who reached the scene immediately after the occurrence and P.W. 6 who was present at the time of preparation of the scene mahazar (Exhibit P-2) and who attested the same, were examined. P.W. 7, Assistant Surgeon of the Government Hospital kozhencherry, who examined and treated P.Ws. 1 and 2, and the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W. 8, who tested the car, were also examined, besides m rising Exhibits P-1 to P-5 on he side of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate after a due consideration of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the other material witnesses found that the respondent drove car KLA 477 along the public road at the material time in a rash and negligent manner and that the failed in observing his duty as a driver and dashed against P.Ws. 1 and 2 causing injuries to them. The trial Court also found that P.W. 4 is an independent witness, that his evidence is convincing and consistent and that his evidence could not be discredited by the defence. It was further found that P.Ws. 1 to 4 gave consistent and convincing evidence regarding the occurrence in the case. 1 and 2 causing injuries to them. The trial Court also found that P.W. 4 is an independent witness, that his evidence is convincing and consistent and that his evidence could not be discredited by the defence. It was further found that P.Ws. 1 to 4 gave consistent and convincing evidence regarding the occurrence in the case. But the trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer in spite of granting more than one adjournment for the purpose. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the order of acquittal is wrong and illegal, that no proper opportunity has been given to the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer, that it was not correct that a few adjournments were given to the prosecution for the purpose of examining the Investigating Officer, that the Investigating officer attended the Court on 18th March, 1976 that there was no sitting on that day and that subsequently no summons was sent to or served on the officer or officers. 5. It is seen from the judgment that P.Ws. 1 to 8 have deposed to the entire case in necessary details, and that the learned Magistrate has duly and carefully considered their evidence and found their evidence, especially that of P.W. 4 is satisfactory and reliable. The judgment does not show that any case diary contradiction, whether material or not, has been brought out during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. On going through the materials placed before this Court and the judgment of the trial Court, I find the non-examination of the Investigating Officer in this case has not in any way caused prejudice to the respondent. If the Investigating Officer did not appear in pursuance of the summons issued to him it was the duty of the Court to have taken coercive steps to secure the presence of the Investigating Officer and initiate necessary action for the disobedience of the summons of the Court. The non-examination of an Investigating Officer does not per se furnish a ground for acquittal, although it is a circumstance which may be taken into consideration by the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The non-examination of an Investigating Officer does not per se furnish a ground for acquittal, although it is a circumstance which may be taken into consideration by the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. But in certain cases the non-examination of the Investigating officer may deprive the accused of a valuable right and opportunity to prove the materia] case diary contradictions brought out during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or other important fact sand circumstances favourable to the defence resulting in serious prejudice to the accused. In such a case, the non examination of the Investigating Officer may adversely affect the prosecution. It is seen from the order sheet that on 17th February, 1976 there was a direction to issue summons to C.Ws. 7, 10 and 11 and of these C.Ws. 10 and 11 are said to be Investigating officers and the case was adjourned to 28th February, 1976. As the summons did not return, the case was adjourned to 18th March, 1976. There was no sitting on that day. On 27th March, 1976 as the respondent was absent and as the summons also did not return, the case was again adjourned to 15th April, 1976. On that day also the summons sent to C.Ws. 10 and 11 had not been returned. Thereafter no summons was issued to the Investigating Officers, nor any coercive steps taken against them to secure their presence. In these circumstances the prosecution cannot be blamed for the non-examination of the Investigating Officers and the acquittal of the respondent on this ground is wrong and is liable to be set aside. 6. The order of acquittal in this case is therefore set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for disposal according to law, after giving one opportunity to the prosecution to examine the Investigating officers. The Magistrate will see whether he cannot enforce the attendance of the Investigating Officers for the sake of completeness of the trial.