R. A. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE state has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th of September, 1983 passed by Sri Vishram Singh, First Additional Munsif Magistrate, Saharanpur acquitting the accuse a respondent Abbal Hasan of the charge under section 25 of the Arms Act. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly put as below: ( 2 ) THREE constables, to wit, Nepal Singh, Sheo Raj Singh and Surendra Singh of police station Mirzapur in the district of Saharanpur, were on patrol duty on the night between 13th and 14th of March, 1983. They reached near the culvert of Kasimpur canal in the jungle of Fayaj Garh at about 10. 30 P. M. to find the accused coming from the side of village Dadal. The constables flashed their torches and accused made an attempt to escape. He was then overpowered after covering a short distance. No public witness was available at that hour of the- night in the jungle, so they made a search of his person without the presence of any public witness any recovered two live cartridges and one country made pistol from his possession. Nepal Singh prepared the recovery memo on the spot and carried the accused alongwith the incriminating articles to police station, Mirzapur here he lodged the first information report at 0. 30 hour on 14-3-1983. The crime was registered in the General Diary and the charge sheet was submitted after investigating and obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate for the prosecution. Charges were framed -against the accused by the trial court on 1st of July, 1983. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Magistrate, therefore, fixed the date, to wit, 23rd July, 1983 for production of the prosecution witnesses as provided under section 242 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) SURENDRA Singh, one of the prosecution witnesses of fact, appeared on 23rd of July, 1983 but the A. P. O. conducting the case, declined to produce him and moved an application for adjournment of the case on the ground that the informant Nepal Singh was not in attendance. His application for adjournment was allowed and the case was adjourned to 16th of August, 1983 for production of the prosecution witnesses. His application for adjournment was allowed and the case was adjourned to 16th of August, 1983 for production of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution again prayed for adjournment on 16th of August, 1983 on the ground that the Head Constable Clerk was not at the police station. It was further urged that Nepal Singh the informant, was suffering from malarial fever but no medical certificate was filed in support of the contention. The Pairokar Munna Lal Sharma of the police station on oral enquiry by the court informed that Nepal Singh was on duty at the police station. All the witnesses of fact were officials of the police station Mirzapur yet the prosecution was not able to produce them. The Magistrate even then granted one more adjournment to enable the prosecution to produce its evidence and adjourned the case to 5. 9 1983 for recording the prosecution evidence. The prosecution again prayed for adjournment on 5-91983 and as there was no good ground for granting any further adjournment the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for adjournment and closed the prosecution evidence. He recorded the statement of the accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused declined to produce any witness in defence. The learned Magistrate heard the arguments and acquitted the accused. ( 4 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that the court below has erred in not affording sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to produce its evidence. The least which can be said that the facts as stated above clearly indicate that the learned Magistrate has a afforded more than sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to produce its evidence but the prosecution has failed to produce them for the reasons best known to the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses of fact were the police officials of the same police station where the case was registered. The record shows that no application at any stage was moved by the prosecution requesting the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness. It so appears that no such application was moved because the prosecution witnesses were officials of the same police station and no summons was required to be issued to them, as the prosecution was in a position to produce them without any summons. Section 242 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or. Section 242 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or. claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241 then the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of the witnesses. As I have observed above this has been done by the Magistrate and he fixed 23rd of July, 1983 for recording the prosecution evidence. Sub-clause (2) of Section 242 says that 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. A Magistrate can in exercise his discretion, issue a summons to any witness on the application made by the prosecution and if any summons is so issued on any such application, then the Magistrate is required to see that the attendance of the witness is procured. In the instant case, as stated above, neither any application was moved for summoning any witness nor was any order passed by the court below to issue summons to any witness. So the court was not required to ensure the attendance of the witnesses. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce its witnesses, who were employees of the same police station where the case was registered and whom the prosecution desired to produce without obtaining any summons for their appearance in the Court. The learned Magistrate has granted adjournments to the prosecution on 23rd of July and 16th of August, 1983. Even then the prosecution failed to produce its evidence. The learned Magistrate was perfectly within his jurisdiction in closing the evidence and the view taken by the court below cannot be said to be unreasonable. In an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible then the appellate court should not interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the court below unless the conclusions are not possible. The appellate court should be slow in disturbing the holdings of the court below if two views are reasonably possible. Therefore, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. The appellate court should be slow in disturbing the holdings of the court below if two views are reasonably possible. Therefore, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. In the instant case, from the facts stated above, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the prosecution to produce its evidence and it failed to avail of that opportunity and that there was no justification to grant any further adjournment. The view taken by the Magistrate cannot be said to be unreasonable so as to interfere with it in an appeal against the order of acquittal. ( 5 ) HAVING considered the entire facts and circumstances bearing on the record as discussed above the order of acquittal passed in flavor of the respondent is justified and as there is no evidence against the respondent be could not be convicted of the charge. He has been rightly acquitted of the same by the court below. The appeal against the order of acquittal, therefore, has got no force and shall be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal dated 5. 9. 1983, passed by the Second Additional Munsif Magistrate, Saharanpur, is confirmed. The accused is in jail in execution of the bailable warrant Issued against him by this court because be could not furnish bail. He has been produced before me. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. Acquittal upheld .