PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). These Revision Applications have been filed by the State against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate on different dates in different cases. Applications were submitted for issuance of summons to witnesses and the orders passed thereon are challenged without giving facts of the case. Mr. S. T. Mehta, learned A. P. P. while arguing the matter was also not able to state before this Court that prosecution is launched against the accused persons for having committed a breach of particular statute. While filing the revision applications it was the duty of the applicant to narrate the facts in the memo of application. In the instant case, that is not done. Along with revision applications affidavit is required to be filed. But surprisingly in these applications, no affidavits are filed. While praying for dispensing with the affidavit, without narrating facts, the statement is made in each petition in the prayer clause that "affidavit may be kindly dispensed with as the facts are taken from the certified copy of the judgment". These revision applications are not against the judgment passed by the Trial Court but are filed against the order passed on applications with regard to issuance of summons. Therefore, ordinarily these applications preferred by the State should be rejected on the ground that facts are not stated in the applications and the prayer is made to dispense with as if the facts are stated in the applications. It may be that with a view to have limitation as stated by the learned a. P. P. in hot haste applications might have been preferred but certainly at subsequent stage the applicant was required to place on record the material and even having failed in doing so it is not proper for the state to urge that the record should be perused. ( 2 ) ). Even office of the High Court while examining the petitions have not taken proper care in this behalf. It was for the registry to verify and if facts are not stated, ought to have raised an objection. ( 3 ) ). In all these matters, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Una has rejected the application or has passed an order directing the prosecution to keep witnesses present instead of summoning witnesses. It was for the registry to verify and if facts are not stated, ought to have raised an objection. ( 3 ) ). In all these matters, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Una has rejected the application or has passed an order directing the prosecution to keep witnesses present instead of summoning witnesses. Even the assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, in spite of some orders passed by the Presiding Officer in other cases, indicating that a general application should not be made, submitted very vague and general application requesting the Court to issue summons as per the convenience of the Court to witnesses whose names and addresses have been disclosed in column No. 4 of the charge-sheet giving reasons that neither the learned assistant Public Prosecutor nor the Police Officers are authorised to issue summons. In some applications names have been given but addresses are not given and it appears that, therefore, the learned Magistrate might have rejected such applications. ( 4 ) ). These are the proceedings initiated in the Court of Magistrate. With regard to the evidence for prosecution Sec. 242 of the Code will be applicable in trial of warrant cases by Magistrate. So far as the cases instituted otherwise than on police report are concerned, Sec. 244 of the code will be applicable. So far as the trial of summons cases by Magistrate are concerned, Sec. 254 of the Code will be applicable. These sections read as under :"section 242 : Evidence for Prosecution: (1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under sec. 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses. (2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. (3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Section 244: Evidence for Prosecution: (1) When, in any warrant case instituted otherwise than in a Police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Section 244: Evidence for Prosecution: (1) When, in any warrant case instituted otherwise than in a Police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (21 The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. Section 254: Procedure when not convicted: (1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Sec. 252 or Sec. 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. (2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. (3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court. " ( 5 ) ). Thus, reading Secs. 242 and 244 it becomes clear that an application is required to be submitted and on such application being tendered on behalf of prosecution the Court will issue the process or summons directing a witness to attend or to produce any document or other thing. So far as trial of summons case is concerned, Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take such evidence as may be produced in support of prosecution. The Cri. Procedure Code also contemplates that if court thinks fit on the application of the prosecution may issue summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. That section also gives discretion to the Magistrate for direction for depositing reasonable expenses of the witness which may be incurred by a witness in attending the Court. Therefore, it is clear that once an application is submitted the Court has to exercise its discretion and has to issue summons. ( 6 ) ). That section also gives discretion to the Magistrate for direction for depositing reasonable expenses of the witness which may be incurred by a witness in attending the Court. Therefore, it is clear that once an application is submitted the Court has to exercise its discretion and has to issue summons. ( 6 ) ). In this group of matters as observed, Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge has given very vague applications and ought to have given details, i. e. , name of witnesses, their addresses and the purpose for which they are to be summoned. From these cases it appears that Assistant Public prosecutor has asked the Court to summon witnesses referred in the chargesheet. It was the duty of the Assistant Public Prosecutor to submit proper application by giving details for issuance of summons. The The learned magistrate then has to pass orders in accordance with law. If the application tendered is not in accordance with law, Court should direct the Assistant public Prosecutor to tender application giving necessary details within time specified. If such an order is passed and the applicant remains negligent, then that may be a ground for passing appropriate order of discharging or acquitting accused. ( 7 ) ). Again reverting to scheme as per Sec. 242 of the Code, if accused is not convicted under Sec. 241 of the Code, then the Magistrate shall have to fix a date for the examination of witnesses. At that stage on application of the prosecution, the Magistrate may issue a summons to any of its witnesses. This being a case instituted on a police report, even complainant and witnesses may not be knowing the date of hearing and therefore, in such cases it becomes duty of the prosecutor to submit an application as stated earlier and it becomes duty of the Court to pass order in accordance with law. So far as summons case is concerned, either on police report or not, Sec. 254 provides for an application for issuance of summons. In a case instituted on a private complaint complainant may produce evidence. In a police case, complainant or witnesses may not be knowing the date of hearing and, therefore, on application it becomes duty of the Court to issue summons. In a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, complainant may be able to produce his witnesses. In a case instituted on a private complaint complainant may produce evidence. In a police case, complainant or witnesses may not be knowing the date of hearing and, therefore, on application it becomes duty of the Court to issue summons. In a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, complainant may be able to produce his witnesses. However, in such a case complainant may apply for summons to a witness and it becomes duty of Court to consider the same and to pass an order in accordance with law. ( 8 ) ). Under the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it was the duty of the Magistrate under sec. 252 (2) of the said Code to ascertain from the complainant or otherwise the names of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for prosecution and it was obligatory to summon the witnesses. In the present Code under Sec. 244, there is departure and there is no obligation on the Magistrate to ascertain himself and to issue, summons, but has to take evidence as may be produced in support of prosecution. The Magistrate may on the application of the prosecution summon a witness. Under the old Code there was no specific provision in Sec. 251a for an application by the prosecution for issue of a summons to its witnesses. In the present Code, there is specific provision in Sec. 242 (2) for making such an application. So far as summons trial is concerned, sub -sec. (2) of Sec. 254 of new Code is almost similar except a word "prosecution" in new Code for "complainant" which is referred in Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 244 of the old Code. From the present scheme it is clear that application should be tendered before the Court for summons to a witness which should not be vague and general, but with name, address of a witness and the purpose of examination. Unless these details are given, Court may not issue a summons and may ask the prosecution to submit proper application. ( 9 ) ). In some cases, witnesses, though remained present were not examined. If, Magistrate is of the view that it causes harassment, could have passed appropriate orders for cost. Unless these details are given, Court may not issue a summons and may ask the prosecution to submit proper application. ( 9 ) ). In some cases, witnesses, though remained present were not examined. If, Magistrate is of the view that it causes harassment, could have passed appropriate orders for cost. Sec. 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code is also required to be perused which reads as follows :"section 312 : Expenses of complainants and witnesses : Subject to any rules made by the State Government, any Criminal Court may, if it thinks fit, order payment on the part of the Government, of the reasonable expenses of any complainant or witness attending for the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding before such Court under this Code. "section 312 contemplates that complainant or witness "attending for the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings" before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order for payment of reasonable expenses. While Sec. 254 contemplates that even before summoning any witness on such application Magistrate may call upon to deposit the reasonable expenses for attending the Court for the purpose of trial. Thus, if the cases are not conducted on account of absence of the prosecutor or the defence Counsel, if situation calls for, it becomes bounden duty of trial Court to pass orders under these provisions. ( 10 ) ). The Code also provides power to postpone or adjourn the proceedings further after taking cognizance of an offence or the commencement of trial, if the Court finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement or adjourn any enquiry or trial. After recording reasons, the proceedings may be adjourned. Explanation 2 to this Section also provides that the case may be adjourned or postponed on the terms which may include payment of cost by the prosecution or the accused. Thus, the Court is empowered to see that witnesses are not unnecessarily called or after they are called and if without recording their evidence either at the instance of the complainant or the prosecution or the defence the case is adjourned, then party at fault can be ordered to pay the cost to witnesses also. In some of the cases it is found that witnesses though attended their evidence could not be recorded. In some of the cases it is found that witnesses though attended their evidence could not be recorded. It is also found that after cognizance being taken after a long delay an application is given for issuance of summons which is also very vague and the accused is required to attend the Court unless exempted from appearance. Magistrate if found that it causes harassment should have passed order protecting the witnesses or accused from unnecessary expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From all these cases, it appears that the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the prosecution was not right in submitting vague and general application. In some cases, the Court passed specific orders, yet the assistant Public Prosecutor in charge has filed similar application in other cases. The Assistant Public Prosecutor should have been more careful while submitting the application to the Court. Apart from that, in some cases, as it is found that accused have been acquitted either on the ground of compounding of offences or after recording evidence on merits, yet the assistant Public Prosecutor has not informed either the State Government or the Public Prosecutor, High Court. Mr. Mehta had no instruction in all these matters otherwise he would have stated before this Court that particular matter is disposed of and no further orders are required. In matters of 1984 after calling for the record and proceedings of the case office of the Public Prosecutor has not taken care with the result the proceedings have been delayed and in some cases on account of this accused will have to face trial now. .