JUDGMENT Giridhar Malaviya, J. - By the present appeal the State of U. P. has challenged the order dated 23.3.1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Duddhi Mirzapur in Criminal case No. 590-A of 1981 State v. Ram Gopal Shukla, whereby he acquitted the respondent Ram Gopal Shukla under Sections 409/471 IPC. 2. It appears that the respondent Ram Gopal Shukla was the head clerk in the Government College at Duddhi.During the year 1978, he received Rs. 1,823.21, but did not deposit the same in the Government account. He embezzled this amount and forged entries in the official records. Similarly in the year 1977, he received Rs. 124.80 p. which was again embezzled, and forged-entries in that respect were also made by the respondent. In the year 1980, he is alleged to have embezzled Rs. 11,764.97 for which he also made forgery its the record. In the year 1979, he is alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 5,237.70 and forged the entries in that regard also. The principal of the college filed the first information report in this case. The case was registered. The respondent was chargesheeted, whereafter he was tried. 3. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that barring P.W. I Nand Lal Maurya, a lecturer of the Government College, who was asked by the principal to submit his report (Ex. Ka 1) to the Principal, after going into the allegations of embezzlement by the respondent, no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite quite some opportunity being given to the public prosecutor to examine the other witnesses. The court below consequently decided the case by closing the evidence of the prosecution only on the strength of the evidence of P.W. 1 Nand Lal Maurya. The court below found that so far as the entries in the official record were concerned although they were alleged to have been made by the respondent, yet they were not examined by an expert. The court below obviously thought that in the absence of any expert's opinion, the evidence of making forgery in the record could not be substantiated. The court also took into consideration the fact that no evidence had been produced before the court to indicate when and how much money had been received by the respondent and that also from which source. The court also took into consideration the fact that no evidence had been produced before the court to indicate when and how much money had been received by the respondent and that also from which source. Holding that the solitary evidence of P.W. 1 could not establish any charge against the respondent, the court below acquitted the respondent from the charges under Section 409/471 I.P.C. against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Sri K.C. Saxena has rightly contended that in a warrant trial, the Magistrate should not close the prosecution evidence only on the ground that the prosecution is unable to produce the witnesses, and the courts in that case are bound to adopt coercive method to get the witnesses produced in the court by issuing warrants etc. This having not being done by the court below, the order passed by the court below is certainly bad in the eyes of law. 5. Normally, in this case the order of the Court below should be set aside and the case should be sent back to the court concerned to proceed against the respondent after making effort to secure the presence of witnesses by adopting corrective method. However, the question which further merits consideration is whether any useful purpose is likely to be achieved by sending this case back to the trial Court. The last embezzlement in the college is reported to be of the year 1980, i.e., 12 years' back. The Principal and other employees who were working in the college at that stage are not likely to be available. As a matter of fact, it appears that they were already not available at the time when the court below passed the order of acquittal in this case. Consequently the possibility of any evidence being led by the prosecution before the trial Court appears to be rather remote. 6. Under the circumstances, although it is observed that the court below was not justified in recording the order of acquittal against the respondent without examining 01 the witnesses in this case, no direction issued to the court below to proceed with the trial once again. This is done strictly, because considerable time has elapsed since the date of the alleged embezzlement and the period when this ratter may again be heard by the trial court. 7. This is done strictly, because considerable time has elapsed since the date of the alleged embezzlement and the period when this ratter may again be heard by the trial court. 7. The result is that with the observation that the court below was wrong in acquitting the respondent in the manner it has done by its order and judgment dated 23.3.1985, this court does not propose to interfere against the order of acquittal at this belated stage and this appeal consequently stands disposed of in term, of observation made above.