JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 19.8.1981 passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Baramba, in Ice Case No. 41 of 1980, acquitting the Respondent of the charge u/s 324, I.P.C. 2. None appeared for the Respondent at the time of hearing of the appear. 3. The Appellant was the complainant and the Respondent was the accused in the said ICC Case No. 41 of 1980. The complainant's Case, in Short, is that on 10. 6. 1980 as he was putting fence around the boundary of his ancestral house, the accused-Respondent armed with Bhalli, along with another Mandar Bharati armed with a lathi, arrived there and objected to his putting the boundary fence when there was altercation between the Appellant and Respondent, and in the course of such altercation, the Respondent dealt a blow on the Appellants belly with the Bhalli causing it bleeding injury. 4. The reamed Magistrate while acquitting the accused-Respondent of the charges u/s 334, I.P.C. observed as follows: Another important feature, which is fatal to the prosecution case is that none of the witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition or the Doctor have been examined to bring home the charge against the accused. Had the doctor been examined, he would have thrown some light en the prosecution case. The above quoted observations disclose that the non-examination of the material witnesses has weighed with the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused. The learned Counsel far the Appellant contended that such non-examination of the material witnesses was not due to any laches on the part of the complainant, but he has not given sufficient opportunity for examining them The learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended, that in the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate acted illegally in acquitting the accused, without the examination of all the material witnesses and more so when the complainant had prayed the Court to give him an opportunity to examine such witnesses. 5. To appreciate the point in issue it is necessary to peruse the relevant order-sheets. On such perusal it is seen that on 1.8.1981 the complainant has preyed for time to adduce further evidence in the case but his time petition was rejected and the case was posted to 5.8.1981 for the examination of the accused. When the prosecution evidence was thus closed, only 2 P.Ws. were examined. On such perusal it is seen that on 1.8.1981 the complainant has preyed for time to adduce further evidence in the case but his time petition was rejected and the case was posted to 5.8.1981 for the examination of the accused. When the prosecution evidence was thus closed, only 2 P.Ws. were examined. On 5.8.1981, the accused's statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the Case was posted to 10.8.1981 for defence evidence. That on 10.8.1981 the defence declined to adduce any evidence. At that stage the learned Magistrate discovered that no charge was framed against the accused u/s 324, I.P.C. Hence he framed a charge against the accused u/s 324, I.P.C. and thereafter an opportunity was given to the defence to further cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2 but the defence declined to further cross-examine them after framing of the charge. The complainant's lawyer at that stage filed a petition to adduce further evidence in the case, but the learned Magistrate rejected his petition and posted the case to 12.8.1981 for argument. Arguments were heard on 12.8.1981 and the judgment was pronounced on 19.8.1981. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned Magistrate acted illegally in rejecting his petition dated 10.8.1981 for adducing further evidence after the framing of the charge on 10.8.1981. So he contends that the trial is vitiated as the prosecution was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce his evidence and, therefore, on that score alone the judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. In a warrant case once a charge is framed against the accused it becomes the duty of the learned Magistrate to see that justice is done in the matter and for that purpose wide powers are conferred on the Magistrate to clear any obstacle in the way of justice being done. If the prosecution is slack and neglectful in its duties, it does not follow that the Magistrate also should fall in line with it. No doubt the prosecution should not be permitted to abuse the process of the court by securing unnecessary adjournments. But all the same, the Magistrate should not be in a hurry to close the evidence Contrary to the provisions of law. No doubt the prosecution should not be permitted to abuse the process of the court by securing unnecessary adjournments. But all the same, the Magistrate should not be in a hurry to close the evidence Contrary to the provisions of law. In this case for whatever reason charge u/s 324 I.P.C. against the accused was framed only on 10.8.1981 and on that very day the learned Magistrate gave an opportunity to the defence for cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 after framing of the charge, but the defence declined to avail of the same. Under the circumstances, when the complainant's lawyer filed a petition for adducing further evidence in the case, in View of the provisions of Section 242, Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate should have allowed the complainant's petition and instead of it acted illegally in rejecting it and posting the case for arguments. Even if the learned Magistrate felt that the complainant was adopting dilatory tacties, in view of the fact that the charge against the accused was framed only on 10.8.1981, he should have given at least one more chance to the complainant to produce all his remaining witnesses by the next, date and accordingly fixed a date for such evidence, clearly indicating in the order-sheet that no further adjournment would be given to the complainant merely for the purpose of producing his witnesses Hence it is seen that the learned Magistrate acted illegally in closing the prosecution evidence, in the manner he did; without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce further evidence after the framing of the charge and on that score alone the entire trial is vitiated and the order of the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused is, therefore, liable to be set aside. So I am compelled to order retrial of the accused-Respondent with a direction that the trial should proceed after the stage of the examination of P.W. 2. In view of the fact that the prosecution proposes to examine some more P.Ws., the parties may be permitted recall any witness already examined for the purposes of re-examination and further cross-examination, if the trial court considers it necessary in the interest of justice. If the additional evidence so adduced by the prosecution discloses anything incriminatory against the accused, he may be further examined u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the same. If the additional evidence so adduced by the prosecution discloses anything incriminatory against the accused, he may be further examined u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the same. The defence should be given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, if any. 7. In the result, the judgment of the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused is hereby set aside and ICC Case No. 41 of 1980 (Indramani Bharati-complainant v. Baikuntha Bharati-accused) is remanded to the trial court for retrial of the accused and disposal according to law as soon as possible in accordance with the directions given and observations made, in the preceding paragraph and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The lower court records be sent back immediately. Final Result : Allowed