Judgment : This is an unfortunate case wherein the truth has been the casualty resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice on account of the callousness and supine indifference shown by all those who are vested with the task of implementation of law and administration of justice. 2. On a complaint, Exhibit P-1 preferred by the appellant (P.W. 1) before the Tharamangalam police, a case was registered in Crime No. 108 of 1979 of the said station against the accused (respondent 1) for an offence punishable under section 326, Indian Penal Code, on the accusation that on 31st March, 1979, at about 11 a.m., at Pavala Thanur, he caused grievous hurt to the appellant by splashing acid on his face, as a result of which P.W. 1, sustained extensive injuries all over his face in patches, chest, back of the chest, right thigh and left thigh, as detailed in the wound certificate, Exhibit P-3 issued by P.W. 6, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Salem. 3. To prove the charge indicated against the accused, six prosecution witnesses were examined, of whom P.W. 1 is the victim of this inhuman attack which is diabolical in conception and cruel in its execution; P.W. 1’s son, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3 speak about this occurrence. P.W. 4 was the driver of a lorry, and he, who happened to pass that way, removed the injured to the hospital in his lorry P.W. 1 is an attesting witnesses to the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3 (a glass tumbler, ‘a towel and a shirt respectively) under Exhibit P-2 prepared by the investigation officer. It transpires from P.W. 1’s evidence that eight days before this occurrence, on a complaint given by P.W. 1 to the police allegaing that the accused’s father and his Junior paternal uncle had committed theft of a wooden log belonging to him, both the father and the uncle of the accused were arrested and a case was registered and that the accused herein, getting angry against P.W. 1 on recount of this criminal prosecution launched against his father, had thrown the acid on the face of P.W. 1 when the latter was driving his loaded cart proceeding from Salem to Vanavasi. P.W. 2 was sitting on the cart. P.W. 3. was driving his cart following P.W. 1’s cart and proceeding from Salem to Nangavalli. P.W. 2 was sitting on the cart. P.W. 3. was driving his cart following P.W. 1’s cart and proceeding from Salem to Nangavalli. The accused who was driving his cart behind that of P.W. 3, suddenly got down from his cart at Pavala Thanur, questioned P.W. 1 as to why he had made the police arrest his father, and unexpectedly, threw acid on the face of P.W. 1 and ran away after throwing the glass tumbler M.O. 1 at the scene. P.W. 1, being unable to bear the burning sensation, fell down and screamed. P.W. 4 took the injured to Salem hospital. It is further stated that the bullocks also sustained injuries, one on its lumbar region and the other on its thoracic region. Though a. wound, certificate had been obtained from, the Veterinary Surgeon by the investigation officer, that certificate has not been marked, (The said certificate is found in the unfiled documents). On an intimation of the accident received from the hospital, the police went to the hospital, took the statement Exhibit P-1 from P.W. 1, registered a case and after investigation filed a charge-sheet under section 326, Indian Penal Code, against the accused. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for. 18 months. On appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 1980, preferred by the aggrieved accused, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and, sentence passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer, the failure of which had prejudiced the accused by depriving him of. the opportunity of eliciting contradictions with respect to the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, and also of obtaining answers from the investigating officers in his. favour. The learned Sessions Judge though has pointed out certain contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and expressed his-view on the reliability and acceptability of one or two witnesses, has not rendered any specific finding as to the acceptability or otherwise of the main part of the testimony of P.W. 1. Hence this revision by P.W. 1. 4. Mr. Muniratnam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, forcibly contends that as the appellate Court has overlooked certain material pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution, grave injustice has resulted. Hence this revision by P.W. 1. 4. Mr. Muniratnam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, forcibly contends that as the appellate Court has overlooked certain material pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution, grave injustice has resulted. According to him, the lower appellate Court, in the interests of justice, should have examined the investigating officer to obviate the grievance of the accused and confirmed the conviction or at any rate, having regard to the nature of the offence and its gravity, ordered a fresh trial by the trial Magistrate. 5. The occurrence took place on the main road leading from Salem to Vanavasi on the night of 3,1st March, 1979 at. 11 p.m. The fact that P.W. 1 sustained injuries on a vulnerable part of, his body due to the acid throw is beyond controversy and indeed there is no dispute on this matter. But, the question for determination is whether the prosecution has proved, the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in the manner known to law or whether there has been any injustice occasioned in this case warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 6. I shall now examine whether the case ended in an acquittal due to the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused or whether the case had become unsuccessful due to any technical flaw committed by the prosecution or due to the gross indifference shown by all those who are entrusted with the task of enforcing the law and administering justice. As already observed, the appellate Judge has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground of the non-examination of the investigating officer and in fact the learned Judge has demanded the higher police officials to deal with the investigating officer suitable for his recalcitrant attitude and gross negligence in not examining himself before the trial Court. 7. At the direction of this Court, the case diary has been now produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that after the examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the police filed an amended charge-sheet, dated 16th January, 1980, adding the offence punishable under section 429, Indian Penal Code (for maiming the bullocks) along with section 326, Indian Penal Code, by availing section 216. Criminal Procedure Code. On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that after the examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the police filed an amended charge-sheet, dated 16th January, 1980, adding the offence punishable under section 429, Indian Penal Code (for maiming the bullocks) along with section 326, Indian Penal Code, by availing section 216. Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court on the basis of the initial charge-sheet, has framed the charge only for an offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code, against the accused for having caused grievous hurt to P.W. 1, hut failed to frame a charge for the offence under section 429, Indian Penal Code. Even after the filing of the amended charge-sheet, the charge has not been amended. Had the Court examined all the documents inclusive of the wound certificate in my view, it could have framed the charges against the accused for the offences both under section 326 and under section 429, Indian Penal Code. Even the charge levelled against the accused under section 326, Indian Penal Code, reads that the accused had caused ‘hurt’ to P.W. 1 instead of reading ‘grievous hurt’. 8. It is highly deplorable that the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet only for an offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code, though the situs of the injury, the nature in the injury, the impelling circumstances surrounding the occurrence, all suggest a graver form of offence like the one under section 307, Indian Penal Code. More often than not, we come across charge-sheets filed by the police for offences under section 307. Indian Penal Code, when the accusation made in the complaint and the statements recorded during the investigation from the witnesses do not really warrant a case of that nature. But, in the present case, it is not known as to what prompted the investigating officer to think it fit to file a charge-sheet only for an offence triable by a First Class Magistrate without properly examining the eye specialist about the probable consequence; of the injury, if not immediately attended to. But, in the present case, it is not known as to what prompted the investigating officer to think it fit to file a charge-sheet only for an offence triable by a First Class Magistrate without properly examining the eye specialist about the probable consequence; of the injury, if not immediately attended to. In this connection, I would like to mention that it is imperative on the part of the police who initially register the case or finally file the charge-sheet to mention the proper Penal provisions which should be in conformity with the nature of the accusations made in the complaint and the gravity of the offence brought out during the investigation. Such in action of registering a case under a specific penal provision should not be at the fanciful or whimsical discretion of the officer concerned, lest it would be an abuse of his powers, because criminal trial is the culmination of a genuine investigative process. 9. Equally, there is a duty cast upon the Court to go through all the documents forwarded by the police under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to frame the proper charge so that the wrongdoer is properly dealt with, In the present case, the trial Court does not seem to have gone through the entire records, especially the medical certificate issued by Dr. Chandrasekharan, Eye-Specialist, who had treated the injured, which certificate is found annexed to Exhibit P-3, and the certificate issued by the Veterinary doctor. Had the trial Magistrate done so, probably he would have framed the proper charge or charges for the indictable offence or offences. However, as I am now inclined to remand the matter, I do not intend to express my view as to what would be the proper charge in this case. 10. It is terribly shocking to note that even the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who was in charge of this case, had failed to mark the certificate issued by the Eye-Specialist and the certificate issued by the veterinary surgeon, as Exhibits, despite the fact that the Eye-Specialist Dr. Chandrasekharan has been cited as a witness in the memo. of evidence though at a later stage by interpolation. Chandrasekharan has been cited as a witness in the memo. of evidence though at a later stage by interpolation. (The copy of the said memo of evidence removed from the case diary is marked as Exhibit C-1), Thus, the Assistant Public Prosecutor has not discharged his onerous responsibility in the interests of the public, by bringing all the materials before the trial Court, so as to enable the Court to effectively render justice in the case. In this connection, I feel it would be appropriate to cite certain decisions of ‘he Supreme Court and of this Court dealing with the duties and responsibilities of a Public Prosecutor. 11. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh1, has observed thus: “In this context, it is right to remember that the Public Prosecutor (though an executive officer as stated by the Privy Council in Faquir Singh v. The Emperor2, is, in a large sense, also an officer of the Court and that he is bound to assist the Court with has fairly considered view and the Court is entitled to have the benefit of the fair exercise of his function.” A Bench of this Court consisting of Anantanarayanan, C.J. and Natesan, J., Mohambaram v. Jayavelu3, has made the following observation: “Not merely is the office of Public Prosecutor a public office, but, in my view it is a public office of considerable significance, for the integrity and efficiency of the administration of criminal justice. Anyone appointed to this office must, in the interests of the public, have a high degree of efficiency, and knowledge of the law of Crimes and the Criminal Procedure; he must have character and integrity, that are irreproachable and above suspicion; he must have a sense of his duty to the public and to the Court, as overriding considerations. As can be immediately realised, if these requisites are lacking, the incumbent to such an office can gravely injure the administration of criminal justice. The ideal Public Prosecutor is not surely concerned with securing convictions, or with satisfying the departments of the State Government, with which he has to be in contact. He must consider himself as an agent of Justice.......” I also had an opportunity to examine the nature of the duties of the Public Prosecutors in conducting cases, in State by Public Prosecutor v. Ramachandra Raju4. In that case, the following observation has been made. He must consider himself as an agent of Justice.......” I also had an opportunity to examine the nature of the duties of the Public Prosecutors in conducting cases, in State by Public Prosecutor v. Ramachandra Raju4. In that case, the following observation has been made. “Indubitably the office of the Public Prosecutor involves the duties of public nature and is of vital interest to the public and therefore, the Public Prosecutor, who is rightly regarded as a Minister of Justice should unreservedly dedicate himself to the task assigned to him and discharge the same impartially, fairly and fearlessly, with a full sense of responsibility and with so much of efficiency and thoroughness, which are the essential requisite qualifications that one should possess to hold this high office. ...” To the above observation it may be added that the Public Prosecutor is not the protagonist of any party though in theory he stands for the State in whose name all prosecutions are conducted. He is to aid the Court by examining all witnesses who have had knowledge of all the relevant facts unless he has got sufficient cause to believe that the witness has come with a pre-determined intention of giving false evidence or that his examination is unnecessary or superfluous, and thus should place before the Court all the evidence bearing upon the charge. Hence, a person who is appointed to this highly responsible post should always uphold the dignity of this high office with a full sence of responsibility and see that its value is in no circumstance devalued. In this case, it is regretable that no evidence has been elicited in the chief examination itself of P.W. 1, as to the present condition of his eye-sight. 12. As there was no evidence on record as to the condition of the eye-sight of the victim (P.W. 1), he was asked to appear before this Court on 13th December, 1982. The victim gives a horror of sight with extensive healed wounds and scars and with shrunken face and eyes. He was sent for examination to the Government General Hospital, Madras, from where he was referred to the Government Ophthalmic Hospital, Madras. The victim gives a horror of sight with extensive healed wounds and scars and with shrunken face and eyes. He was sent for examination to the Government General Hospital, Madras, from where he was referred to the Government Ophthalmic Hospital, Madras. A Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the said hospital has issued a wound certificate opining that both the eye-lids of P.W. 1 have cicatrical ectropion with irregular burn scars on the face, more on the right side, and that his right eye is completely blind. 13. Though this opinion cannot be taken as legal evidence as the medical officer has not been examined before the Court, I am taking the opinion of the medical officer as contained in the certificate only for the purpose of showing that as a result of the acid throw, F.W. 1 has completely lost one of his eyes. Adding injury to the insult, the investigating officer has adopted an openly hostile attitude and failed to appear before the trial Court and give evidence despite the fact that summons were issued to him on several occasions which were never returned either as served or as un-served. The learned Public Prosecutor now states that the investigating officer was dealt with by the higher officials and he has been warned to be more careful in future. Whatever may be the action taken against him, the fact remains that justice has failed in this case on account of the non-co-operation and the recalcitrant attitude on the part of the investigating Officer in not appearing before the Court. The trial Court, in my view, ought to have taken coercive process to secure the presence of the investigating officer and examined him. 14. The trial Court, in my view, ought to have taken coercive process to secure the presence of the investigating officer and examined him. 14. A Full Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, in State v. Veerappan1, while examining a situation as in this case has observed thus: “In almost all the decisions, in which it has been held that an acquittal of the accused on the ground that the prosecution did not produce the witnesses, was improper, the Courts have pointed out that the duty to summon the witnesses in the course of the trial, is that of the Magistrate of the Court concerned, and that the entire responsibility of production of witnesses cannot be saddled on the prosecution and a duty is also imposed upon the Court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses by process provided in the Code and it is the duty of the Court to issue coercive process if in spite of summons served on the witnesses, the witnesses do not appear before the Court and the prosecution fails to produce the witnesses as directed. We are in respectful agreement with that view in so far as it emphasizes the duty of the Magistrate of the Court.” Finally, the Full Bench has held that only in case the presence of the witnesses, in spite of the coercive steps taken by the Court, could not be secured and the prosecution, either on account of the pronounced negligence or recalcitrance, does not produce the witnesses, then the Court, being left with no other alternative, would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the case. As pointed out by the lower appellate, Court, the trial Court ought not to have closed the prosecution without taking coercive steps to secure the investigating officer. 15. Added to this, it is not known as to why the head constable H.C. 1337 who seems to have gone to the hospital and recorded the statement, Exhibit P-1 from P.W. 1, on the basis of which the case was registered, has not been examined, though his name also has been interpolated obviously at a later stage in the memo of evidence. 16. 16. Thus, it is clear in the present case that the investigating officer has not only failed to file the charge-sheet under the proper penal provision, but has also shown a highly recalcitrant attitude in the conduct of the case and ultimately has adopted a hostile attitude in not appearing before the Court despite the summonses issued by the Court. 17. It is not known whether the investigating officer had consulted the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor and obtained his opinion as to the nature of the offence and the witnesses to be examined in Court. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who conducted the case, as pointed out before, seems to have not gone through the entire papers, viz., the certificate issued by the Eye-Specialist Dr. Chandrasekharan, the certificate issued by the veterinary surgeon, etc., and has also failed to examine the head constable who registered the case, and to elicit answers from P.W. 1 as to the condition of his eye-sight. 18. The way in which the trial Court has disposed of the case indicates that the Court also has not taken pains to see that justice is done in a manner known to law. Perhaps it was anxious to dispose of the case one way or the other. 19. Though generally this Court, while sitting in its revisional jurisdiction, will not be inclined to interfere with an order of acquittal, that too at the instance of a private party, when the State has not preferred any appeal, the facts and circumstances of this case do warrant an interference by the exercise of the extraordinary discretionary power vested in this Court in aid of justice, so that the grave injustice occasioned in this case could be set right. See Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram1and Chellammal v. Packiam2. 20. In the result, for all the reasons stated above, I set aside the order passed by the lower appellate Court and also the judgment of the trial Court and remand the entire matter to the trial Court which, on receipt of the papers, is directed to frame a proper charge or charges against (he accused and proceed with the case in accordance with law, uninfluenced and untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in justification of this order, and dispose of the case expeditiously. 21. 21. Before parting with this case, I cannot avoid commenting on the recalcitrant attitude and supine indifference shown by the investigating officer though it is intimated to this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor that the higher police officials have warned the Sub-Inspector, viz., the investigating officer herein, to be more careful in future. 22. A prosecution may become unsuccessful for various reasons such as lack of evidence, technical flaws and defects in the investigation, improper conduct of the case before the Court by the investigating agency, etc. Those who are entrusted with the task of the enforcement of law and administration of justice should see that justice does not faith on mere technical grounds, because a layman such as the victim in this case, who is not concerned with the technical flaws or defects, is anxious about the proper and effective enforcement of law and administration of justice at the hands of the Court, that is to say, he is eager to see that the real offender does not go unpunished. The public at large expect the process of investigation and the administration of justice to be efficiently, fairly and speedily carried on without giving any room for a culprit to escape through the loopholes of the investigation or due to the glaring misbehaviour of the investigating agency. Needless to say, that the primary and paramount object of the criminal law, viz., the prevention of crimes, depends upon the interest evinced by the investigating officer in a case investigated by him. If cases of grave nature end in acquittal on mere technical grounds or on the mere lapses on the part of the investigating officer or on the part of the prosecuting agency in the conduct of the case or of the Court itself in not applying its judicial mind in its great responsibility of administering justice, the citizens would loss their confidence and become desperate and consequently will not show any interest in co-operating with the law enforcing authorities in their task of enforcement of law. The Courts holding the scales of justice should always remember that there may be a scale made of gold to weigh justice, hut that there is no scale made of any material to weigh the injustice done to the society. 23. List of Exhibits marked in this Court: Exhibit C-1. The Courts holding the scales of justice should always remember that there may be a scale made of gold to weigh justice, hut that there is no scale made of any material to weigh the injustice done to the society. 23. List of Exhibits marked in this Court: Exhibit C-1. 10th August, 1979: Carbon copy of the Memo, of Evidence prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tharamangalam Police Station, in Crime No. 108 of 1979 under section 326, Indian Penal Code.