M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is one of those unfortunate matters in which because of want of proper investigation and failure on the part of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial with the required sense of responsibility attached to the said public officer an order of acquittal had to be passed against an accused person for want of proper material having been brought on record by the prosecution for the purpose of bringing home the charge against the accused. ( 2 ) THE respondent was tried for the offences under secs. 304a 337 of the I. P. Code and secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act in Criminal case No. 431 of 1978 in respect of an accident which happened on 3-1-1978 at about 4-40 p. m. near village Sihi taluka Patan when on account of the accident one of the persons travelling in the vehicle involved in the accident viz. jeep car lost his life and one person sustained injuries. ( 3 ) MR. Vaidya the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State has drawn my attention to some peculiar features of this case and they tell a sad story about the manner in which the investigation was carried on and the trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. Witness after witness stepped into the witness box and started exhibiting a tendency hostile to the prosecution. Most of the witnesses had to be declared hostile and courts permission was obtained for putting questions in the nature of cross-examination to these witnesses. Some of the witnesses were cross-examined with regard to their police statements. But it is surprising to find that no attempt at all was made by the prosecution to bring on record any contradictions whatsoever from the police statements of any of these witnesses who were declared hostile and who were confronted with a case that they made contrary statements in their statements before the police. ( 4 ) PANCH witness Chelaji P. W. 4 on whom depended the proof of the panchnama and bringing on record the circumstances under which the vehicle was found from the pit near the road and the condition of the vehicle as also its exact location brake mark and other details turned hostile and though be had made a statement earlier in examination in chief that he had signed the panchnama Ex. 17 he later in examinationin-chief itself stated that the said panchnama was not got written by him. He was declared hostile but no attempt was made to prove the contents of the panchnama by examining the other panch witness viz. Babulal Jethalal. ( 5 ) THE occupants of the jeep which was involved in the accident gave evidence in such a manner that the evidence of one witness would be in conflict with the evidence of the other and thereby they destroyed the evidence of the other. In this state of the evidence on record the learned Magistrate had no other option but to record a finding of not guilty against the accused and to acquit him. ( 6 ) THE complaint which was taken was by head-unstable on the strength of entry which had been earlier made at the police station being entry No. 1477. But strangely enough that entry which was the first in point of time and which in all probability must have contained the information with regard to the cognizable offence was not brought on record and the learned Magistrate therefore declined to treat Ex. 22 that is the complaint filed by head constable Shamsherkhan on the next day of the incident. ( 7 ) BUT before I part with the judgment I would once again like to draw the pointed attention of the personnel manning our public services constituting the investigating agency and the institution of prosecutors who have to discharge the respective roles assigned to them in the great mission of administration of justice in which each has to carry out an important assignment and any lapse on the part of any of the limits of the said organization engaged in the work of administration of justice will result not only in miscarriage of justice but loss of common mans faith in the judicial system itself also. It is therefore high time that these persons discharge their duties with circumspection and a sense of responsibility and with the vigilance and efficiency expected of them. Appeal dismissed. Zanuben Devji v. Mansukhlal Bhagwandas Ramanbhai Trikamlal v. Vaghri Vaghabhai Oghabhai and Anr. Keshavlal v. Atmaram referred to. .