JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The accused/respondent has been ordered to be acquitted of charges under Ss. 353 and 506(b) I.P.C. by J. M. F. C. Kolaras Distt. Shivpuri, because the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to sub-stantiate the Charges. The State has come up in appeal challenging the order of acquittal. 2. One Budhiprakash Sharma was Secretary to Gram Panchayat Khe-ron, Distt. Shivpuri attached with the block Development Office, Kolaras. He lodged an F. I. R. with P. S. Tendua on 29-1-80 alleging that on 27-1-80 he had gone to a point on Kherona-Kharji Road for the purpose of payment to labourers employed in relief works. The payment was to be made in kind. The accused accompained by a few labourers came to him and insisted on Budhiprakash going to village Kherona and miking the payment there itself. Budhiprakash efused to oblige the accused in the absence of orders of B. D. O. to that effect. On this the accused got annoyed and threatened him with life, dlagged him to the house of the accused and confined him there. The complainant was told by the accused that he would not be permitted to go unless he made the payment. A few villagers intervened leading to the release of the complainant whereupon he returned to his officer, made a report to him and then to the Police. 3. The police registered the offence under Ss. 353 and 506-B I.P.C. and after investigation filed a challan in the Court on 4-4-80, keeping the accused present who was earlier enlarged on bail. The charges were framed and the case was posted for prosecution evidence on 21-7-80 for the first time. There were.several adjournments for one reason or the other, but without any progress in the case. On a date or two the complainant and the I. O. appeared before the Court but they could not be examined. Ultima-tely, the matter came up on 3-(sic)-83. The witnesses were not present. The Court directed the case to be fixed for prosecution evidence on 16-4-83 as last opportunity. Thereafter, 1-6-83 was fixed again as last opportunity. But on that day too, witnesses were not present. On 24-8-83 the trial Court directed the prosecution evidence to be closed because 'last opportunities' were already given and the Court felt no justification in giving any further opportunity. Thereafter, 1-6-83 was fixed again as last opportunity. But on that day too, witnesses were not present. On 24-8-83 the trial Court directed the prosecution evidence to be closed because 'last opportunities' were already given and the Court felt no justification in giving any further opportunity. The case was posted for 15-9-83 for the examination of the accused. Still the Court directed that if the prosecution produced any evide-nce on that day, it would be recorded before examining the accused. On 15-9-83 also the prosecution did not produce any evidence. The Court exa-mined the accused. Ultimately, an order of acquittal was passed. 4. Before this Court the sole submission made by the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State is that the Court should not have closed the prosecution evidence without summoning the witnesses and, if necessary, by resorting to coercive process. I am afraid that the contention cannot be accepted. 5. It is writ large on the record of the case that on 3-1-83 or at any time thereafter the prosecution made no prayer for issuing summons to the witnesses. This was a warrant case instituted upon a police report. The pro-cedure for trial applicable would be one provided by Ss. 238 to 243 of Cr. P. C. 1973. Prior to the enactment of 1973 Code, there was no express provi-sion in Section 251-A (of the 1898 Code) or elsewhere therein for the issue of process compelling the attendance of prosecution witnesses in warrant case instituted on police report. There was controversy in the past as to whether process could be asked for. (See Law Commission of India, 41st Report, Vol. 1 Page 171, para 216). However, it was held that the Court was not powerless in issuing process to compel attendance of the witnessess where it was not possible for the prosecution to secure attendance of the witnessess without summons and the Court was requested by it to render an assistance by issuing summons or a coercive process compelling the attendance of any witness for giving the evidence in the case. It was held that the word 'pro-duced' occurring in the then S. 251-A (vii) was not to be given a restricted meaning. The lacuna has now been removed in the present Code by addition of sub-section (2) in Section 242 in pursuance to the recommendation of the Law Commission. It was held that the word 'pro-duced' occurring in the then S. 251-A (vii) was not to be given a restricted meaning. The lacuna has now been removed in the present Code by addition of sub-section (2) in Section 242 in pursuance to the recommendation of the Law Commission. The provision has now been made expressely empowering the Magistrate to issue a summons to any of the prosecution witness directing attendance or production of documents or other thing on the application of the prosecution. In the present case no such application was made, not even an oral prayer for issuing summons. The prosecution cannot be heard to say that the Court failed in its duty in securing the attendance of the witnesses and closing the prosecution evidence when it itself failed in producing the witnesses. 6. However, even otherwise it is not a fit case where interest of the jus-tice would be served by setting aside the order of acquittal and remanding the case for retrial. The incident is now more than 8 years old. It appears to be a petty incident and as such must have lost much of its significance by now. From the facts of the incident it appears that the accused was canvas-sing a cause not his own. He probably wanted the Government agency dis-tributing the wages in relief work must reach out to labourers where they were camped and not vice versa. But he overdid the things, crossed innoce-nce and entered criminality. The accused-respondent always remained present in the Court ever since 4-4-80 to 8-9-83, the period during which the case remained pending before the trial Court. Before this Court also he has been appearing under bail of Rs. 8,000/- and the appeal has remained pending for more than 3 years. He has already suffered much and if at all he had com-mitted a wrong, he must have learnt a lesson by now. 7. The result is that appeal fails and it is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent shall stand discharged.