JUDGMENT 1. IN this revisional application under Section 387 read with section 401 and 482 of the cr. P. C. filed by the complainant petitioner order dated 16.6.80 passed by judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court Asansol in case Ni, c/1505 of 1976 arising out of a complaint under sections 403 and 406 I. P. C. is being assailed. The offences were alleged to have committed in respect of bus built on Tata Mercedes chasis bearing no. BHR 8292, hereinafter to be referred to as the bus. By the order impugned the learned magistrate rejected complainant's petition for direction on the accused to produce the bus in court for, identification by the complainant. After some witnesses of. the complainant other than the complainant himself were examined by the order impugned the learned Magistrate. on the prayer of the accused directed examination of the complainant before other witnesses' following the decision reported in 51 cr. L. J. 115. 2. CHALLENGING the correctness of the order impugned Mr. Kashi Kania Moitra the learned Advocate for the petitioner points out the difference in language used in Section 244 of the Code of 1973 with parallel provisions of section 252 of the old code. 244. Evidence for prosecution (1) When, -in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report the accused appears of is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. 252. Evidence for prosecution.- (i) In any case instituted otherwise than on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, such Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution Provided that the Magistrate shall not be bound to hear any person as complainant in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court. (2) The Magistrate shall ascertain, from the complainant or other-wise, the names of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution, and shall summon to give evidence before himself such of them as he thinks necessary. He contends that the difference in the text and terms of the two sections indicates a well calculated plan. Under the section 252 of the old Code the magistrate himself was to hear the complainant's case while under the section 242 of the present Code the Magistrate is to hear the prosecution consisting of the Complainant and others on his side. On the basis of words used, in Sec. 244 (2) he contends that the Magistrate's duty is to take evidence as produced by the prosecution. He contends that the Magistrate has not discretion to exercise in this behalf and interfere with the order in which the prosecution may choose to examine its witnesses. He argues that under section 242, the Magistrate cannot compel the complainant to appear for his examination; of course he has some power under section 311 of the Code; in this connection he refers to section 135 of the evidence act which runs as follows:- "the order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. " On the basis of the decision in Prithvi Nath vs. R. C. Kaul, reported in 1975 Cr. L. J. 216 he argues that in the first place the regulation of evidence must be according to the law or practice which is for the time being in force. Secondly this provision will apply only in the absence of any law to the contrary. The general practice in criminal courts is that the evidence is taken in the order in which it is produced by the prosecutor and seldom the court interferes with this order. Secondly this provision will apply only in the absence of any law to the contrary. The general practice in criminal courts is that the evidence is taken in the order in which it is produced by the prosecutor and seldom the court interferes with this order. That this practice should be adhered to in criminal cases is even more important for the reason that in a criminal case the entire brunt of proving a prosecution case falls on the prosecutor and it is therefore for him to choose and devise ways and means of proving a case against an accused beyond any doubt. If the courts start dictating a change in the order, it may lead to serious prejudice and thereby to serious miscarriage of justice. 3. NEXT he contends that the decision relied upon by the learned Magistrate in respect of his order has no applicability inasmuch as it was a decision under a comparable section of the old code which was differently worded. 4. THE arguments advanced by Mr. Moitra have considerable force and Mr. Sen Gupta, the learned advocate for the opposite party had very little to submit in reply. Indeed from a comparison of the text and terms of Sec. 252 of the old repealed Code and Section 242 of the present Code the conclusion is inescapable that in trials Of Warrant cases on private complaint after the appearance of the accused, law requires the Magistrate to have the prosecution to examine such witnesses as they produce without the help of the court; and thereafter the Magistrate may on the application of prosecution issue summons for attendance of further witnesses or production of documents. The Magistrate has no discretion in the matter and cannot interfere with; the order in which the prosecution intends to examine its witnesses The magistrate may however summon any witness and examine any person present in court at any stage of trial under section 311 of the Code if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The Magistrate may again draw his own conclusion from the order of witnesses examined by the prosecution but cannot interfere with the order of examination of witnesses adopted by the prosecution. The Magistrate may again draw his own conclusion from the order of witnesses examined by the prosecution but cannot interfere with the order of examination of witnesses adopted by the prosecution. Accordingly I reach the conclusion that the learned Magistrate's direction in the order impugned to the effect that complainant should examine himself before examination of the other witnesses is illegal and wrong. That portion of the order will be set aside. . . . Then we come to the other portion of the order. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate appears to have rejected complainants' petitions for production of the bus in question in the court compound for identification by the complainant Mr. Moitra points out that by order dated 8.9.76 the learned Magistrate had issued search warrant for recovery of the bus clearly stating in the order "if the bus is seized in pursuance of the search warrant the same will be released in the custody of its present registered owner on an appropriate form with condition to produce the bus forthwith on calls". Mr. Moitra complains that the bus has been released to the custody of accused Bishnu-pada mukherjee subject to the above condition on bond and in the fitness of things the learned Magistrate should have allowed the complainant's petition for production of the bus before the court but curiously enough he rejected the petition of the complainant. Mr. Sengupta on the other hand draws my attention to Annexure 'b' to the revision application showing that pursuant to an agreement between, Bishnupada Mukherjee and Parivahan sharmik Co. the bus in question is being used as a stage carriage vehicle on replacing basis on a certain route. Mr. Sengupta contends that the bus is in use and has not been removed to a distant area but the accused Bishnupada cannot be compelled to produce the bus repeatedly in court to his own financial inconvenience and to the inconvenience of traveling passengers just to satisfy the whim of the complainant. He further contends that if the learned Magistrate passes an appropriate direction the bus may be produced for identification by the complainant when he comes to the witness box to depose. Regarding this part of the case the order of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be unfair or improper. He further contends that if the learned Magistrate passes an appropriate direction the bus may be produced for identification by the complainant when he comes to the witness box to depose. Regarding this part of the case the order of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be unfair or improper. True, there is a condition in the bond for production of the bus but that does not mean that the complainant can compel production of the bus repeatedly and whimsically. The complainant has certainly right to apply to the Magistrate for production of the bus giving reasons for such production. Then the learned Magistrate will consider the reasons and will pass appropriate orders thereto. For the present no cogent reason has been shown for production of the bus in court. The order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the complainant's petition for production of the bus cannot therefore be found fault with if the complainant by an appropriate petition containing good reasons satisfy the court hereafter for production of the bus certainly the magistrate will consider the application on merits. But that is no reason why the portion of the order now under consideration should be set aside. 5. IN the result the revision application succeeds in part only. The order of the learned Magistrate impugned is set aside in so far as it directed the complainant to examine himself as a witness before other witnesses. But the other part of the order in so far as rejected the application of the complainant for production of the bus is concerned that portion is affirmed. Subject to the observations made above the rule issued is made absolute on contest. Records be sent down to the Court below forthwith and the learned Magistrate is directed to hear and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the observations made above. Application allowed in part.