JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application for special leave to appeal against the order of A.M.J.M., First class, court No. 2, Bundi, dated 30-11-84, by which all the accused persons had been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 379 and 447 IPC. 2. A Private complaint was filed by Bala petitioner, against the six persons, who are opposite parties, on the allegation that the complainant was in possession of Khasra No. 406 measuring 26 bighas and 1.5 biswas. Adjacent to this field is Khasra No. 403 which belongs to the accused. The allegation was that the accused persons removed the Med, which was between these two fields and then entered upon the field of the complainant petitioner and cut the standing crops and took it away. At that time they also tried to beat the complainant. Learned Magistrate after examining the witnesses for the complainant, framed charge against the accused persons on 27th July, 1984, and then the accused persons requested for further cross-examining the witnesses for the complainant. It was ordered that the complainant should produce three witnesses for further cross-examination on the next day, which was 21-8-84. On 28th July, 1984, the complainant party submitted process fee and notices for the summoning of the witnesses. However, on the next date i e. 2Ist August, 1984, the complainant requested for time for submitting the witnesses for further cross-examination and time and granted to him to produce the witnesses. On 14th September, 1984, the complainant himself was further cross-examined by the accused party and the other witnesses were not present. One more opportunity was given to produce the witnesses. One of the witnesses viz. Chittar had already died in the meanwhile, therefore, he could not be produced for further cross-examination, one witness Nandlal remained and one more opportunity was given to the complainant to produce him on 18th October, 1984, but he was not present. Subsequently the complainant's evidence closed on 12-11-84 and after recording the statements of the accused persons, arguments were heard and the accused were acquitted as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had submitted process fee for the summoning of the witnesses and the learned Magistrate could not close the evidence by refusing opportunity to produce the witnesses. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had submitted process fee for the summoning of the witnesses and the learned Magistrate could not close the evidence by refusing opportunity to produce the witnesses. In support reliance has been placed in the case of Rampal v. Mangia, reported in AIR 1952 Rajasthan 60 , in which it was held that in the trial of a warrant case after the framing of the charge, the duty of recalling the prosecution witnesses under s. 256 is cast upon the Magistrate trying the case, and the complainant should not be penalised for their absence when he was not at fault. 4. In the present case, the complainant did submit process fee on I 28-7-1984 for summoning the witnesses but the subsequent dates given to I him were for producing the witnesses himself before the Court. He did not insist that they should be summoned by the Court, or that he could not produce the witnesses himself for some reason. When he was satisfied by the Court's order granting time to him to produce the witnesses and - did not make any subsequent effort to get them summoned through Cow t, it cannot be now said that the learned Magistrate wrongly closed the evidence of the petitioner and then proceeded to decide the case. 5. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has not placed reliance on the statement of PW 3 Chittar, who could not be produced for further cross-examination, because at that time he was already dead. However, in my view the absence of considering the evidence of this witness cannot be said to have resulted in miscarriage of justice because the other evidence in the case has been considered along with the fact that same evidence which the complainant could have produced had not been produced before the Court. This petty incident had occurred in the month of March, 1978, and does not deserve to be prolonged further. 6. The leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******