Judgment 1. This revision application has been filed by Shiv Charan Yadav informant against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Godda, dt. 27-7-1985 passed in G.R. No. 3/82 acquitting the accused under S.232, Cr. P.C 2. It appears that on 12-1-1982 the petitioner gave a fard-beyan at about 11 p.m. in Rajaun police station in injured condition saying that while he was coming from Charkha village he saw Sarjug Yadav, Anirudh Yadav, Ram Prasad Yadav and Chaturbhuj Paswan sitting near Matkhani Dar, Sarjug Yadav was armed with garasa and others with lathi. When the petitioner reached near the place suddenly Sarjug Yadav asked his friends to kill the petitioner (informant) whereupon Sarjug Yadav and other accused persons started assaulting him. Sarjug Yadav gave a garasa blow on the neck of the informant-petitioner. To save the informant Raju Manjhi came in between and as such the garasa blow given by Sarjug Yadav fell on the head of Raju Manjhi. Ayodha Manjhi also received lathi blow in saving the informant. The informant was also assaulted by lathi. In the meanwhile when villagers came running then the accused person fled away. On the basis of a lard beyan a first information report was registered on 12-1-1982 under Ss.323, 324, 326, 307/34, I.P.C. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet and thereafter the ease has been committed to the Court of Session 3. It appears from the order-sheet that the trial started on 29-4-1985. On that date only accused Ram Prasad Mahto appeared. No P.Ws. appeared and the Public Prosecutor was directed to procure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses on 11-5-1985. On 11-5-1985 the accused persons were present but no prosecution witness was present, and the Public Prosecutor took time till 1-6-1985 to secure the attendance of the witnesses. On the said date only two accused appeared but no prosecution witness was present. A petition for time on behalf of the prosecution was filed with a prayer to adjourn the case till 22-6-1986, as in spite of all efforts no prosecution witness had appeared. The court directed the office to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Godda. The case was again taken on 24-6-1985 and on that date no witness on behalf of the prosecution appeared. The Public Prosecutor was directed by the Court to secure attendance of the witnesses and the case was adjourned to 10-7-1985. The court directed the office to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Godda. The case was again taken on 24-6-1985 and on that date no witness on behalf of the prosecution appeared. The Public Prosecutor was directed by the Court to secure attendance of the witnesses and the case was adjourned to 10-7-1985. On 10-7-1985 also no prosecution witness appeared though it is stated in the order of the said date that summons had been issued through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Godda, but S.R. had not been received. The case was again adjourned to 23-7-1985 as last chance on the prayer made on behalf of the prosecution with specific direction to the Public Prosecutor to secure the attendance of the prosecution witness otherwise necessary order would be passed. Again on the said date no prosecution witness appeared and the public prosecutor filed a petition with prayer for adjournment of the case for tomorrow which prayer was allowed, with specific direction to him to procure the attendance of the witness. On 24-7-1985 again attendance of the prosecution witness had not been secured. Again the public prosecutor filed a time petition with a prayer for adjournment of the case for next date i.e. 25-7-1985. He was also directed to secure the attendance of the prosecution witness on the said date. No prosecution witness appeared on the said date and so the public prosecutor filed a petition with statement that in spite of steps taken and wireless message sent no witness turned up. The case was adjourned to 26-7-1985 for recording statement of the accused under S.313, Cr. P.C. On 26-7-1985 all the accused persons appeared and their statement u/s. 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded and the case was adjourned for argument on 27-7-1985. On 27-7-1985 the public prosecutor appeared on behalf of the prosecution and so also the learned counsel on behalf of the defence. The argument under Ss.323, Cr. P.C. was heard, and the impugned order acquitting the accused was passed 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner informant urged that from the perusal of the record it appeared that no summons had been issued by the court below, no list of witnesses had been filed and there is no S.R. report and as such no summons had been issued to prosecution witnesses including the informant who is a material witness being injured by the accused. When the petitioner-informant came to know about the passing of the impugned acquitting order he rushed up to this Court and filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner-informant placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Babuchand Prasad V/s. Ram Babu Cope, 1979 BBCJ (HC) 306 to the effect that the court is bound to issue process on the application of the prosecution for compelling the attendance of the witnesses. 5. As to these contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears from the record that there is nothing on the record to show as to whether summons had been issued to the witnesses for the prosecution. There is only one copy of the wireless message which is said to have been sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Godda to the concerned Sub Inspector of Police to secure the attendance of the witnesses. There is nothing on the record to show that any step had been taken by the Court below to secure the attendance of the witnesses. The public prosecutor had been taking lime not once but several times and had been getting the case adjourned. Under S.230, Cr. P.C. it is incumbent upon the court to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing. The court below has done nothing in this regard as borne out from the record. In the case of Babuchand Prasad (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been observed at page 308 para 7) :- "It is, no doubt, true that on the date fixed for hearing the prosecution has to produce all such evidence in support of its case, but the prosecution is also certainly entitled to seek the assistance of the court in securing the attendance of any witness or production of any document or other things. Even when this new Code was not in force, it was observed by a Bench of this Court in Md. Yasin V/s. The State, AIR 1954 Pat 437 : (1954 Cri LJ 1437) that where witnesses on being summoned did not turn up it was the bounded duty of a Court to see that its order were obeyed, and any one guilty of disobedience of the orders of the court should be proceeded against according to law. Yasin V/s. The State, AIR 1954 Pat 437 : (1954 Cri LJ 1437) that where witnesses on being summoned did not turn up it was the bounded duty of a Court to see that its order were obeyed, and any one guilty of disobedience of the orders of the court should be proceeded against according to law. It was further observed that the courts were not powerless or helpless in this matter and a court to take action where there was no reasonable explanation for disobedience of its orders or ignoring of its summonses. The Supreme Court also in the case of Jamatraj Kewalji Govani V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178 : (1968 Cri LJ 231), while dealing with S.540 of the old Code observed that this provision conferred a wide jurisdiction on a Court to be exercised at any stage of the trial to summon witness or examine one person in court or even recall a witness already examined. This was made rather a duly and obligation of the Court provided the just decision of the case demanded it. This Court was faced with a similar situation in the case of Stale V/s. Mangilal Ram, 1974 BLJR 578 : (1974 Cri LJ 221) again a case under the old Code. In that case in a warrant trial instituted on a police report some witnesses were not turning up, and it was observed, by this Court that the correct position of law in this regard was that in a warrant case instituted on police report, the primary duty was of the prosecution to produce witnesses, but since the prosecution which was the State or the Public Prosecutor had no power or machinery to compel attendance of the witnesses, it was fully justified in seeking the help of the Court for their production. Help of the court may be asked for by praying to the Court to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses. It was further observed that even if after service of summons a witness did not appear, the prosecution might ask the court to issue warrant of arrest, although in the absence of a prayer to this effect, the court was not obliged nor was its duty to issue any warrant of arrests. It was further observed that even if after service of summons a witness did not appear, the prosecution might ask the court to issue warrant of arrest, although in the absence of a prayer to this effect, the court was not obliged nor was its duty to issue any warrant of arrests. It was further observed that even if the prosecution did not make a prayer for issue of summons or for issue of warrant of arrest in a given case, the court was not powerless to issue such a process under the general powers of the court. The position on coming into force of the new Code has improved in this regard and a provision has now been made in S.323 of the Code, specifically providing for on making of an application by the prosecution, issuing any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing." 6. In the instant case neither the Court below issued summons nor the public prosecutor sought help of the court, rather the public prosecutor had been taking time by making applications and the court had been granting time as routine matter and as such the prosecution witness could not come. Even the informant as a material witness being injured was denied of justice. The court had been silent spectator to this drama in which the accused were getting scot-free on the account of non-production of the prosecution witnesses and in which the public prosecutor had been taking step simply by making an application and the court below had been passing order. Thus the order dt. 27-7-1985 is illegal and liable to be set aside 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dt. 27-7-1985 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court below for re-trial in accordance with law.