JUDGMENT 1. - In this application filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order, dated March 18, 1981, passed be the Judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City Jaipur in criminal case No. 1153 of 1980. 2. The petitioner has filed a complaint under sections 407 and 407 read with section 120B IPC against the opposite parties wherein it has been alleged that the opposite parties are partners of M/s Rajasthan Express Transport Company, Jaipur and they have been carrying the goods of M/s Brooke Bond India limited as transporters, in the said complaint it has been further alleged that the opposite parties were entrusted with tea and coffee manufactured by M/s Brook Bond India limited for the purpose of transport from Tundla to different depots under Jaipur area sales-office during the period Form 8th September, 1977 to 30th September, 1977 and that the opposite parties did not deliver the same to the depots of the company in Jaipur area sales office. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrates for the offences under sections 407 and 407 read with section 120 B IPC. and the trial is going on. During the course of the trial the opposite parties have placed reliance on a letter, dated 21st November, 1977 addressed by them to M/s Brooke Bond India limited, Tundla. The case of the complainant is that aforesaid letter was delivered to the addressee at Tundla on 5th December, 1977 and they have filed a certificate to that effect issued by the sub-Post-master Tundla. On 26th February, 1981 the petitioner moved an application before the trial Magistrate for summoning Shri Mukut Behari Lal Shrivastav, retired Sub-Postmaster, Tundla to prove the said certificate with regard to the delivery of envelope containing the letter, dated 21st November, 1977. On the same day the petitioner bad moved another application for summoning certain records from the postal Department. Both applications were disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate by his order, dated 18th March 1981, whereby he dismissed the said applications. The Judicial Magistrate in his order aforesaid has observed that lot of time has elapsed since the delivery of the letter and in view of the provisions contained in para 25 of Chapter 1 of the Post and Telegraphs Manual Vol. The Judicial Magistrate in his order aforesaid has observed that lot of time has elapsed since the delivery of the letter and in view of the provisions contained in para 25 of Chapter 1 of the Post and Telegraphs Manual Vol. 6, the postal department preserves record for a period of one and half years only and it is not likely the records would have been preserved today. 3. I have heard Shri J.K. Mathur, The learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.C. Soni, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 4. Shri Mathur has confined his arguments to the application, dated 28th February, 1981 with regard to summoning of Shri Mukut Behari Lal Shrivastave and Shri Mathur has submitted that the evidence of the complaint is still being recorded. Shri KC. Soni the learned counsel for the opposite parties has also fairly conceded that he would not oppose the summoning of Shrivastava as a witness. Shri Soni has further submitted that the case has been pending since long and a direction may be given for expediting the trial. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be just and proper in the interest of justice that the complainant petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to examine Sbri Mukut Beharilal Shrivastava, retired sub Post-master, Tundla, as a witness to prove the certificate issued by him. 6. I would therefore, allow this application and set aside the order, dated 18th March, 1981, passed by the judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City to the extent that the complainant-petitioner shall be permitted to produce Shri Mukat Behari Lal Shrivastava, retired sub-Post-master, Tundla as a witness in support of his case. The Judicial Magistrate will expedite the trial of the case.Application allowed. *******