Judgment :- This is an appeal filed against the acquittal or the accused under S.255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was tried before the court below for offences punishable under Ss.279 and 304 of Indian Penal Code and 89(a) and (b) read with S.113 of the M. V. Act. Four witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. Then the magistrate felt that no purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses and be in a slipshod manner acquitted the accused. This is being challenged by the State. 2. The incident happened on 4-7-1984 at about 7.15 a.m. in the National Highway at a place near Pallippuram Junction near Quilon. The accused was driving a lorry bearing Registration No. KLQ 1134. The lorry was coming from the northern side and the car driven by the deceased Rajasekharan Nair was coming from the Pothencode-Pallippuram road and was about to enter the national highway from the western side. The car driver showed signal that he intended to go to northwards, but soon the lorry driven by the accused came and hit on the car. The driver of the car died instantaneously. Out of the four witnesses examined in this case, Pws. 2,3 and 4 are the eye witnesses. Pw. 2 deposed that as soon as the car reached the Highway it turned to the Northen side. () (The lorry came in a high speed and it hit on the front side of the car and it pushed the car 15 to 16 feet southwards) Pw. 2 also deposed that the door of the car was opened and the driver fell on the road, sustained serious injuries and his omentum came out and he died instantaneously. Pw. 3 also deposed that the car came from the Pothencode and as soon as it reached the Highway, the driver showed signal to go to the northern side and immediately the lorry came and hit the car. This is spoken to by Pw. 4 also. 3. Despite this evidence the learned Magistrate thought that no purpose would be served by summoning the rest of the witnesses and he closed the matter and acquitted the accused. The order passed is improper and illegal. 4. Under S.254 of the Crl. P. C. the Magistrate should have taken all the evidence produced in support of the prosecution. 3. Despite this evidence the learned Magistrate thought that no purpose would be served by summoning the rest of the witnesses and he closed the matter and acquitted the accused. The order passed is improper and illegal. 4. Under S.254 of the Crl. P. C. the Magistrate should have taken all the evidence produced in support of the prosecution. From the proceedings paper it is seen that the Magistrate has not taken any steps to issue summons to the various witnessess. The prosecution had requested the Court to summon all the witnesses, and as many as 11 witnesses were cited by the prosecution. The language of S.254 is mandatory and the Magistrate is bound to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Magistrate without having any opportunity to understand the scope of the matter acquitted the accused. If the trial magistrate empowered with vast powers under the Code, is taking matters in a light-hearted manner the administration of justice would be she casuality. Whenever trial judge fails in probity and objectivity, it impairs public fidelity to law. 5. The impugned judgment passed by the magistrate is set aside and the Magistrate is directed to take into file this case and dispose of the case after affording sufficient opportunity to produce all evidence in support of the prosecution.