Judgment : One of the victims who has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial court has come forward with this revision canvassing the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate, namely Judicial II Class Magistrate, Orathanad, made in C.C.No.249 of 1987 dated 11. 1988 acquitting all the four accused who are respondents 1 to 4 herein, of the charges made against them under Secs.324, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: P.W.1, a resident of North Street in Serumangalam village, claimed that at about 10 a.m. on 18. 1987 when he along with P. Ws.2 and 3 manuring their crops in the field, third accused was driving a cart nearby his land and P.W.1 told him that while driving the cart not to cause damage to the crops. When P.Ws.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 was returning through their carts, accused 1 to 4 near the coconut grove of Marudayyan intercepted them and picked up quarrels. While doing so, P.W.1 was dragged to the ground by the first accused and was attacked with a spade on the back of his head and accused 2 and 3 beat him with sticks and so also 4th accused. Likewise, second accused also indulged in beating Ponnayyan, P.W.3 with sticks and thereby cause a fracture on his right hand. 3. On giving the complaint Ex.P-1 to the police and causing the same to be registered in Vaduvur Police Station Crime No.244 of 1987, the case was taken up and investigated into and after completing the investigation, a final report was filed against all the accused as stated above. 4. P.Ws.1 to 3, the injured, were examined. Naturally they are the interested persons in the prosecution. But, however, it transpires that inspite of sending of summons for several times to the remaining prosecution witnesses including the investigating staff, not only the summons were not served, but no witness had turned up; nor even any representation made on behalf of the prosecution. It is significant to note from the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate that not even a police constable had appeared representing the prosecution. It is not known as to what had happened to the said summons issued by the Court below. This case had crossed more than 12 hearings on the same pattern. It is significant to note from the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate that not even a police constable had appeared representing the prosecution. It is not known as to what had happened to the said summons issued by the Court below. This case had crossed more than 12 hearings on the same pattern. Even then the trial court was left with no information regarding the rest of the witnesses including the police officer. This kind of attitude of the police officer, namely the investigating officer as well as the other witnesses had been referred to by the learned Magistrate in detail in the impugned judgment. Finding the long pendency of the case without examining the other witnesses of the prosecution, the learned trial Magistrate, for the reasons stated in the judgment in detail invoked Sec.248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after questioning the accused under Sec.313, Crl..P.C. on the basis of the available evidence spoken to against them, rendered the impugned judgment and thereby acquitted all the accused. 5. Mr.Panneerselvam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, during the course of his arguments in this revision raised the only contention that the aggrieved and injured persons P.Ws.1 to 3 had set the law in motion and consequently a case was filed by the police before the court of law against the respondents 1 to 4 herein and that though none of the witnesses turned up for giving evidence except P.Ws.1 and 3, the trial court ought not to have acquitted the respondents 1 to 4 accused without taking coercive steps to procure the remaining prosecution witnesses including the investigating officer. For this position, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a case in State v. Veerappan, A.I.R. 1980 Mad. 260. It is true that a Full Bench of this Court in the above case has held that by virtue of Secs.255(1), 242 and 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate after issuing repeated summons to the witnesses to come and give evidence, ought not to have acquitted the accused without taking coercive process to procure the prosecution witnesses. The mode of process to be issued under such circumstances have been clearly provided under Secs.248 and 253 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mode of process to be issued under such circumstances have been clearly provided under Secs.248 and 253 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case where the prosecution witnesses failed to appear before the trial court for the purpose of giving evidence inspite of repeated summons from the trial court, the Full Bench of this Court in the caseref erred to above held that on the prosecution making a request by filing an application for the issue of coercive process, the trial court ought not to have acquitted the accused without taking coercive steps to produce the witnesses. That was the ratio held by the learned Judges of the Full Bench of this Court in the above case law. But, in the present case, it is totally on the different footing. As was held by the learned trial Magistrate, it is not known as to what had happened to the other witnesses and not even a single police officer had appeared and made any representation to the trial court. The police when it made a charge against the accused must take every reasonable step to serve the summons issued by the court on the witnesses and bring them to the court for the purpose of giving evidence and prove the prosecution case pertaining to the complicity and guilt of the accused and that is the procedural mandate and the various enactments like Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Rules of Practice and Police Standing Orders had clearly laid down to that extent. It is seen that adjournments on more than 12 hearings covering a period of more than one year given by the court did not evoke any response. It is not known what the investigating officer did upon the summons issued. It is highly regrettable that not even a police constable did report for any of the hearings which crossed 12. From this it is seen that the investigating staff was highly indifferent and has no regard to the Court of law, and legal duties, with the result the real culprits who caused injuries by lethal weapons had an opportunity to escape from the clutches of law. This kind of attitude adopted by the police is highly reprehensible and deprecated. 6. I am of the firm view that the investigating staff had disregarded the Court and wanted to make a mockery upon the court. This kind of attitude adopted by the police is highly reprehensible and deprecated. 6. I am of the firm view that the investigating staff had disregarded the Court and wanted to make a mockery upon the court. Otherwise they would have appeared before the court below and discharged their legal duties. As observed by the Full Bench of this Court referred to above, it is seen that in the present case either the police or the Assistant Public Prosecutor had not filed any petition before the trial court requesting to issue coercive process for such of the witnesses including the investigating Officer to come and give evidence. If, following the Full Bench decision, I decide that the impugned order is vitiated for not having issued any coercive process in the context of the total indifference on the part of the investigating agency, the due compliance of the procedural mandate and discharging of the legal duties by the concerned police officer as well as the investigating staff could not be expected to be fulfilled. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the facts of this case are different than that of the facts involved in the Full Bench decision. The interference by this Court on the ground of non-taking of coercive steps is not reasonable or justifiable. Therefore, I do not find any useful purpose in allowing this revision except to observe the abovesaid aspects. 7. If the attitude adopted by the police in the instant case is allowed to continue, then courts cannot function effectively and discharge their duties as contemplated by law, and the rule of law would be totally ruined. The concerned police officer must necessarily be hauled up in accordance with law and procedure. Suitable remedies are to be provided at least to avoid recurrence of the same with a view to safeguard the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution to every citizen of this country. Otherwise, everyone in this country would necessarily lose their faith not only in judiciary, but also in the Government and administration. 8. In the result, I am not inclined to allow this revision, and consequently reject the same. Otherwise, everyone in this country would necessarily lose their faith not only in judiciary, but also in the Government and administration. 8. In the result, I am not inclined to allow this revision, and consequently reject the same. I hereby direct this registrar to forward copies of this order to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu and the Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, for necessary and immediate action against the concerned police officer, who disregarded the court and his legal duties. With the above direction, this revision petition is dismissed.