ORDER Oza, J. - 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the State against an order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agar discharging the non-applicant from a charge under section 13 of the Madhya pradesh Public Gambling Act. 2. The respondent was prosecuted and a charge-sheet was filed on 20th July 1978 under section 13 of the Gambling Act. On 11th September 1978 charge was framed against the non-applicant and the case was fixed for 20th September 1978 for recording evidence. The record of the Court below shows that on this date no witnesses were kept present by the prosecution nor the notices were, produced served. The learned Court therefore adjourned the case and fixed it for 9th November 1978. On this date it appears that the learned Magistrate was on leave, but the record does not show that any witnesses were present or they were served. Thereafter the care was listed on 18th November 1978 and on this date the Court again ordered t he prosecution to keep the witnesses present on t he next date i.e. 4th January 1979. On this date no witness of the prosecution wall present. There is nothing on record to suggest that summons were issued and were not served. Apart from it there is no application made by the prosecution agency requesting further opportunity for explaining as to why the witnesses could not be produced. Learned Magistrate therefore inferred as he has observed in the order that the prosecution is not interested in proceeding with this case. He therefore closed the case and passed an order discharging the non-applicant from the charge framed against him. Against this it is strange that the State has chosen to prefer this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the State seriously contended that from the date the charge-sheet was filed i.e. 20th July 1978 to the date on which the accused was ultimately discharged i.e. 4th January 1979 only six months had lapsed although he is not prepared to contend that such a small matter like a prosecution under section 13 of the Gambling Act should be kept pending bow long in a criminal Court. His main grievance was that only two opportunities were given and it was vehemently contended that there was a duty cast on the Court to examine the witness but learned counsel could not contend that what the Court should do if the agency responsible for keeping the witnesses present fail in their duty. The Court has to dispose of criminal matter expeditiously and it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the State wants this case to he pending for number of years. A part from it if the prosecution do not produce witnesses and serve summons and also do not make any prayer for opportunity for production of witnesses the Court is left with no choice but to close the case. Six months cannot be said to be a short period for a prosecution pending in a criminal Court. I therefore see no error in the order passed by tile learned Court below discharging the non-applicant from the charge framed against him. 4. The revision petition is therefore dismissed summarily without notice to the other side.