JUDGMENT : K.J. Vaidya, J. 1. This appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20th April, 1986 passed by P.M. Vyas, learned J.M.F.C., Jam-Jodhpur, wherein respondent- Naredrasinh Lakhubhai and two others who came to be tried on the charge of obstructing one Jayantibhai Patel, a Ticket- Checker in State Transport Bus on duty and causing injury to him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 332,186, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were ordered to be acquitted in the midst of the trial by arbitrarily closing the prosecution evidence, denying the prosecution its precious right to examine the material witnesses and thereby bring home the charge against the accused persons. 2. On perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the alleged offence took place on 5-9-1986 at 11.45 hours at Jam-Jodhpur in a bus. The charge sheet in the said regard was filed on 11-11-1986. Thereafter, the charge Exh-18 was framed and plea of the accused pursuant thereto was recorded on the very same day i.e., 18-2-1989, after about two years. Thereafter, two Panch-witnesses, that is to say, P.W. Nos. 1 & 2 were examined on 22-8-1989, while Panch-witness No. 3 was examined on 19-1-1990. It further appears that several times summons were issued to the injured complainant at his office address, one after another at Jamnagar, Upleta and Rajkot, where he was subsequently transferred and found to be serving at the relevant time which mechanically returned unserved with endorsements, such as [i] not serving at the place of address; [ii] transferred; [iii] was on long, leave, etc. etc. It also appears that at no point of time either the process server or the Investigating Officer, and for that purpose, even the learned P.P. ever tried to find out the correct residential address of the complainant, particularly when he was not available at the place where he was ordinarily serving. It further appears that the learned Magistrate also on his part, quite surprisingly leaving the fate of justice at the mercy of totally impersonal and callous attitude of the process server, without doing anything of his own to examine the injured complainant and the medical officer, all of a sudden closed the prosecution evidence quite arbitrarily and acquitted the accused. It further appears that the learned Magistrate also on his part, quite surprisingly leaving the fate of justice at the mercy of totally impersonal and callous attitude of the process server, without doing anything of his own to examine the injured complainant and the medical officer, all of a sudden closed the prosecution evidence quite arbitrarily and acquitted the accused. Greater still is the surprise that the learned APP incharge of the case also did not even whisper objecting to the closing of prosecution evidence. It is under these circumstances that the State has preferred the present acquittal appeal. 3. The aforesaid state of affairs distinctly surfaces three things on the top; namely, [i] the indiscreet approach of the learned Magistrate who abruptly acquitted the accused surrendering his will to do justice to the inefficient process serving agency by not at all further activating himself to examine the most important material prosecution witnesses, namely; the injured complainant and the medical officer, and instead by closing the prosecution evidence in all suddenness.. [ii] the most irresponsible way in which the learned P.P. who neither tried to keep prosecution witnesses present before the Court, by taking the assistance first of the Investigating Officer and failing which that of the Police Inspector and the District Superintendent of Police, nor he objecting to the closing of the prosecution evidence by the learned Magistrate and [ii] the careless manner in which the process serving agency mechanically went to the given address of the injured complainant and bounced back like a Tennis-ball with different endorsements on the summons, as pointed out above.. The way in which all these three important functionaries of the judicial system have let down the prosecution case and thereby the ultimate cause of justice is something quite nauseating and shocking enough, and accordingly, deserves to be strongly condemned and dealt with. This is not a new phenomena, as this sort of misconduct has practically become the recurring feature, which is found to be going on unabated because the superior authorities appear to be quite relaxed to control them. This is not a new phenomena, as this sort of misconduct has practically become the recurring feature, which is found to be going on unabated because the superior authorities appear to be quite relaxed to control them. In fact, in all important criminal cases, first of all it is the personal duty of the learned Magistrate to see that as far as possible, the case is decided on merits by examining the, prosecution witnesses, and for that purpose by issuing summons, failing which even the non-bailable warrants securing presence of the accused and/or the witnesses for examination purpose. Secondly, it is equally the personal duty of the learned P.P. incharge of the case to see that the summons or warrants, as the case may be, are taken out from the Court from time-to-time, and the accused/ witnesses are duly served and kept present before the Court on the appointed day for examining them. In case, if the summons/warrants so issued are not served for whatever reasons or are not returned either served or unserved, he should take assistance in the first place of the Investigating Officer of the case and in case of his transfer that of the Police Inspector of the area, and for that purpose, if need be, even that of the District Superintendent of Police to see that the processes issued by the Court are duly served in order to secure presence of the accused/witnesses before the Court. If the learned P.P. fails to do any of these things, he is liable for explanation to the higher ups, and if found guilty, should be dismissed forthwith. Not only that but even the learned Magistrate should not be hesitant in case the learned P.P. incharge of the case and the Investigating Officer fail to assist him in securing presence of either the accused or the witnesses before the Court, by writing a letter to the District Superintendent of Police, and thereafter by making suitable observations against the concerned delinquent in the judgment by forwarding a copy of the same to the concerned (i) District Superintendent of Police [ii] District Magistrate (iii) Secretary, Home Department at Gandhinagar, and (iv) Secretary, Legal Department at Gandhinagar. In case, if the superior Court finds that the learned Magistrate has also failed in discharging the above duties, he is equally liable for explanation to the High Court, and appropriate action thereafter. In case, if the superior Court finds that the learned Magistrate has also failed in discharging the above duties, he is equally liable for explanation to the High Court, and appropriate action thereafter. Not only these, but once it is found that the process serving agency is guilty of either delaying or avoiding service of the process, the Court should not feel hesitant in issuing notice of contempt against the wilful disobedience of the Court orders by such agencies. Taking into consideration the fact that the process serving agency is not discharging its duty efficiently to the expectation and further still, the gradual decline in the sense of duty towards the administration of justice, the concerned District Superintendents of Police of the area are directed to issue Circulars and periodical reminders to all such process serving agencies and Investigating Officers of the area, impressing upon them that: (i) if in the first place, the accused or the witnesses are not available at the given addresses, then in that case, they should make further appropriate inquiry as to where they are and try to collect fresh address and should send the same along with unserved summons so that the concerned court will have an opportunity to issue subsequent summons on the fresh address and [ii] in the second place in event of any wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court in delaying and avoiding to serve the process either on the accused or on witnesses, as the case may be, he would be visited with departmental proceedings over and above the contempt proceedings that may be taken up by the Court. This is indeed absolutely necessary for two reasons, namely; [i] it is because of the delaying tactics of process serving agencies that the cases become old, get piled-up and thereby damage the quality of evidence to be recorded, and [ii] not having become stricter with the process serving agency so far, it has developed a queer sense of irresponsibility and impunity which is quite dangerous to the system of 'Rule of Law' and the 'Administration of Justice' in fact, the aforesaid two instructions in Gujarati language should be got printed and annexed with every copy of summon which is handed-over to the process server, serving the process. It is earnestly hoped that the Home as well as the Legal Department would see to it that Circulars as directed above, are issued by all the District Superintendents of Police to all the learned Public Prosecutors and the Police Officers of the State with a view to see that difficulty in the way of expeditious service of the process is ironed out in the interest of speedy criminal justice. Not only that but it is equally the duty of Legal Department to see that while resolving to file an acquittal appeal, it should also screen through the 'Rojkam' proceedings and find out whether the prosecution has failed in its duty to bring home the charge and for that purpose who is responsible and thereafter, to take appropriate action against the concerned one. 4. Turning to merits of the case; taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence, where the public servant came to be assaulted on duty, the accused ought not to have been given the benefit of such heap default acquittal by not examining the injured complainant and the medical officer, more particularly, when by no stretch of imagination, the injured- complainant can be saddled with any blame for not remaining present before the Court. On perusal of the record, it is very clear that except filing of the complaint before the police, the injured-complainant knew nothing about the proceedings initiated against the accused and pending before the learned Magistrate. In this view of the matter, for no fault of him, the complainant who is really the aggrieved party his grievance before the Court and prayer for justice has been unfortunately let down unattended because of the indiscreet conduct of the case by the learned Magistrate and the learned Public Prosecutor incharge of the case. If the accused are abruptly acquitted in such a manner like the one in the present case, the faith of people in the administration of justice would receive serious set-back. When the accused are acquitted for lack of discharge of duty, firstly, on the part of the prosecuting agency and thereafter, on the part of the Court, what respect indeed can we expect and command from the injured-complainant for the administration of justice, whose grievance goes unattended. These are the questions which both the prosecuting agency as well as the concerned Court must carefully consider. These are the questions which both the prosecuting agency as well as the concerned Court must carefully consider. Rather, this Court feels that to be a public servant and to be assaulted while on duty, and then justice be denied, either because of negligence of process serving agency or because of the learned P.P. or because of any undue haste on the part of learned Magistrate, the same is nothing less than adding 'insult to the injury' or salt, to wounds of the injured complainant. It is indeed difficult to imagine the reaction of the injured public servant in this case, when his demand for justice came to be scuttled down because of indiscreet acts of the learned Magistrate, the learned P.P. and the process serving agency. It is really unfortunate that in this case, the injured public servant has to go with an impression that despite the complaint being filed before the police and the accused came to be challaned before the Court, the accused have proved luckier and above law by earning such illegal and unjust default acquittal. When any aggrieved citizen seeks justice in criminal case, what else he can do except to approach the police, file a complaint and thereafter when summoned to appear before the Court to give evidence, and thereafter, leaving its fate to the bona-fides and good sense of prosecuting agency and the Court. In the instant case, whatever was necessary and required to be done by the complainant was done by, filing the complaint, and still however, he did not get justice not because the witnesses did not support the prosecution, but quite queerly and unfortunately the agents and the custodian of justice viz., the prosecuting agency and the court turned hostile. In the instant case, whatever was necessary and required to be done by the complainant was done by, filing the complaint, and still however, he did not get justice not because the witnesses did not support the prosecution, but quite queerly and unfortunately the agents and the custodian of justice viz., the prosecuting agency and the court turned hostile. It is unfortunate that if such cases of assault on public servants and for that purpose any criminal offences are lightly disposed of in the manner it has been done in the instant case, then the same is bound to bring about three psychological catastrophic results, such as [i] it will demoralize the public servant so much so that he may not be able to discharge his public duty fearlessly and faithfully, with constant lurking apprehension that in the present state of affairs, there was none to protect him; the high-handed anti-social elements in the society will get further emboldened and assured that nothing could be done to them and that the law and the law enforcing agencies were irresponsible and not potent enough to do anything; [iii] the inefficient, it not corrupt, process serving agency and the learned P.P. may take the Court and the cause of justice on joy-ride by not serving the process of the Court and examining the witnesses under one pretext or the other, resulting into complete black-out of justice in the Court. Now these unhealthy fall-outs of the inefficient prosecuting agency are bound to reflect very sadly upon the administration of criminal justice, and accordingly, to prevent the same at the earliest, it is indeed high time that the State Government shall have to gear-up and devise some immediate effective deterrent measures to check and control the process serving constable, Investigating Officer and the learned P.P. incharge of the matter, as suggested above. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, to confirm the order of acquittal, would be nothing but to put a premium over the patent perversity of the learned Magistrate, the 'misconduct of the learned P.P. incharge of the case and the process serving agency. This is extremely serious and the same cannot be countenanced lightly. It is for this reason that the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial Court. This is extremely serious and the same cannot be countenanced lightly. It is for this reason that the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial Court. This Court is taking quite a serious view of the matter only for the simple reason that these days in hot haste and craze for getting cheap disposals, the criminal justice is scuttled down day in and day-out by patent mistakes on the part of the learned Magistrate, learned P.P. and the process serving agency, as earlier stated above. In order to sustain faith of the people in the administration of justice, it appears that time has come when who-so-ever plays foul with the administration of justice, shall have to be sternly dealt with. The learned Magistrate, the learned P.P. and the process serving agency henceforth must know that their duty is to bring about justice on merits. They are the public servants and any irresponsibility in discharge of their duties is accountable. 6. In the result, the impugned order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby quashed and set-aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court to be disposed of on merits according to law. Office registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary (i) Legal Department [ii] Home Department, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, and [iii] Director General of Police, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, for information and necessary action. Appeal Allowed. Judgment of acquittal set aside. Case remanded to trial Court.