ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. This is a revision by the accused, against the orders dated 17-7-1989 and 18-8-1989, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in S.T. No. 129/89, closing the evidence of defence. 2. Material facts leading to this revision are: The accused is being tried for an offence u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of one Devendra Singh Chouhan on 17-4-1987, by gun shots. Prosecution closed its evidence on 3-10-1988. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.c. was recorded on 12-10-1988. Accused moved an application u/s 311 Cr. P.c. for examining one Jogendra Singh and Ballistic expert J.P. Nigam, who were not examined by the prosecution. On 27-10-1988, the Court ordered examination of Ballistic expert as a Court witness. It was also ordered that defence witnesses be also summoned if the defence has given names and addresses. For that, a list of ten defence witnesses with their addresses was filed by the accused on 18-11-1988. 3. On the next date, the defence gave up two witnesses namely, Sharad Shrivastava and Dinesh, whose correct addresses were not available. The Court, for remaining witnesses, directed accused to produce the witnesses or to take steps for procuring their attendance, as is evident from the proceedings date 19-5-1989. D.W. 1 Jogendra Singh was examined. Two witnesses viz. Shiv Prasad and Satya Bhan did not appear in the Court even after service, hence, bailable warrants were issued, but, were received unexecuted. The Court again directed to procure the attendance of witnesses and to check up whether addresses are corrector not. On 17-7-1989, as no defence witness was present, the Court closed the defence evidence stating that even after giving opportunity by issuing summons and bailable warrants for ensuring attendance, the witnesses are not produced, hence, fixed the case for the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. in the light of the statement of Court witness. 4. On the date fixed, i.e. on 27-7-1989, the applicant moved an application for issuance of fresh summons for examination of three witnesses, namely, Satya Bhan, Shiv Prasad and Ajab Singh. This prayer was allowed by ordering that summons be given to accused for service at his risk. On 18-8-1989, the three witnesses, in spite of service, were not present, the applicant prayed time. One more opportunity to applicant to produce the witnesses was granted. This prayer was allowed by ordering that summons be given to accused for service at his risk. On 18-8-1989, the three witnesses, in spite of service, were not present, the applicant prayed time. One more opportunity to applicant to produce the witnesses was granted. It is this order, and the order, closing of evidence of the applicant/accused, are challenged in Revision. 5. As the trial is held up, Shri P .N. Mishra, counsel for the applicant/accused, Shri C.S. Dixit, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State, and Shri N.M. Haswani, counsel for the complainant, submitted that, though, revision is fixed for fixing a date for final hearing, on the application for early hearing, the revision be heard and disposed of finally. 6. Arguments heard. 7. Shri Mishra contended that when an accused is not acquitted after prosecution evidence, u/s 232 Cr. P.C. on the ground that there is no evidence, the accused is called upon to enter upon his defence, and adduce evidence u/s 233 Cr. P.C. Once after considering that prayer of defence for issue of process, made is not for the purposes of vexation, or delay or for defeating the ends of justice, the trial Court could not have directed the accused to serve warrants at his risk, and the attendance of witnesses ought to have been compelled by taking appropriate steps. 8. In my opinion, the submission has got a force. Section 233 Cr. P. C. is imperative, which is extracted in extenso:-- "S. 233. Entering upon defence- (2) Where the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. (2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record. (3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice." 9. A bare reading of the sub-section (1) of section 233 shows that when after the close of prosecution evidence the accused is not acquitted u/s 232 Cr. A bare reading of the sub-section (1) of section 233 shows that when after the close of prosecution evidence the accused is not acquitted u/s 232 Cr. P.C., he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence, he may have, in support thereof. Sub-section (3) of this section lays down that if the accused desires to call any witness and applies for issue of any process for compelling attendance of witnesses or production of any document, or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reason to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purposes of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. Thus, Court can refuse to issue summons only on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) but that was not done in this case by the trial Court, on the other hand, the trial Court ordered for issue of summons. 10. Out of the witnesses summoned, two witnesses who were served, did not appear, bailable warrants were issued, which could not have been issued at the risk of the accused. Later, after examination of Court witness, the accused restricted his choice only to three witnesses. The trial Court, again did not refuse the issue of summons, therefore, once summons were issued, later issuance of summons cannot be cancelled, but the trial Court was bound to help the accused to take suitable steps for ensuring the attendance of witnesses, which were not taken, amounting to denial of fair trial. See Ronal Mood Mallzama v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1954 SC 455 ). 11. True, the trial is pending since 1987, and for the laxity of the trial in the Court, the applicant was ordered to be released on bail by the order passed on 9-12-1988 by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1332 of 1988, but, the anxiety of the trial Court of speedy trial, cannot deny an accused the opportunity of fair trial, which is a basic principle applicable in criminal practice of trial. 12. Therefore, in the circumstances, the order of trying Judge cannot be sustained and is set aside. Case No. 1332 of 1988, but, the anxiety of the trial Court of speedy trial, cannot deny an accused the opportunity of fair trial, which is a basic principle applicable in criminal practice of trial. 12. Therefore, in the circumstances, the order of trying Judge cannot be sustained and is set aside. It is directed that the trial Court shall ensure the attendance of the three witnesses, by issuing warrants and taking such steps, which may be necessary, in accordance with law, for compelling the attendance of the witnesses. The trial shall proceed de die ill diem (from day to day). 13. However, it would be the duty of the applicant/accused to furnish the correct addresses of the said three witnesses. If the witnesses are not found on the addresses so given by the applicant, the trial Court shall be free to proceed with the case in accordance with law. As the trial is held up, it is also directed that the parties shall appear on a date already fixed, that is 11-12-1991. On that date, the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in respect of completing the attendance of the witnesses. The trial Court shall see that the trial is concluded, as far as possible, within a period of three months from 11.12.1991. It is also made clear that for non-appearance of the accused, if the trial is adjourned, the trial Court shall be at liberty to close the right of the defence, to that Shri P.N. Mishra, counsel appearing for the applicant/accused has no objection. 14. Records of the trial Court be sent back with a copy of this order, posthaste, so as to reach the said Court on or before 10- 12-1991.