K. M. PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 11. 3. 1983, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha in Criminal Case No. 185 of 1987 acquitting the non - applicant No. 1 without affording proper opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are: that a challan was filed against the Non -applicant No. 1 for an offence u/s 326 of the I. P. C. on 19/2/1987. The Charge was framed on 6/3/1987 and then the case was listed for prosecution evidence on 10/7/1987. On 10/7/1987, the case was adjourned becausethe summons were not issued to the witnesses. Again the case was fixed for 15/10/1987 and on that date also the case was again adjourned for 15/6/1988 because the summons were not issued by the Court. Again on 25/6/1986 on account of its being holiday the case was taken up next day. On that day, no witness was present and the Court directed for issue of summons to the witnesses and the case was adjourned for 11/8/1988. On that day, three prosecution witnesses were present who were examined and cross-examined and, thereafter, the learned Court closed the case on the same day recorded the statement of the accused person, heard argument and passed the judgment acquitting the accused person. The present revision has been filed against that order. ( 3 ) I heave heard the parties concerned. The facts show that the Court acted in hot haste and proper opportunity was not given to the prosecution to lead evidence with the result that injustice has crept in. Once the Court thinks it fit to summon the witness then it should be seen that the matter is taking to the logical confusion and prosecution witnesses are examined and if they avoid appearance then coercive method should be used for securing the presence of witnesses. It should not be left on the choice of the prosecuting agencies to examine or not to examine the witnesses. In this case F. I. R. was lodged on 11/2/1987. On 12/2/1987 the injured was sent for hospital for examination. It should not be left on the choice of the prosecuting agencies to examine or not to examine the witnesses. In this case F. I. R. was lodged on 11/2/1987. On 12/2/1987 the injured was sent for hospital for examination. He could not be examine on 12/2/1987, he as medically examined next day and then the case was registered U/s 324 I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate has said that there is a dispute on this fact when the injured was examined by the Doctor on 12/2/1987 or 13/2/1987. It was not such a point upon which the Doctors evidence should have been discarded or should have been treated to be doubtful. That itself shows that the learned Magistrate did not exercise proper care. The eye - witnesses consisted of the complainant and medical Report is that the Doctor who had examined him found, teeth-bite in the ear of the victim. A case u/s 326 I. P. C. prima facie was found that the learned Magistrate in hot haste without making any efforts to secure the presence of the witnesses found easier to record the finding of acquittal. This is not the way in which the case u/s 326/324 I. P. C. should have been treated. I feel that justice has not been done to the prosecution and the Court itself should have made an effort to secure presence of the witnesses. ( 5 ) THE following injuries were found on the person of the injured: (i) cutting of pinna of left ear. Cut of portion is of 3 x 0. 3 cm. in size. Cartilage under the pinna is also found cut off. It is (caused) half ovel shape cutting. (ii) Abrasion just below and past to left ear 11/2 x 0. 3 cm. (iii) Abrasion on left cheek 1. 5 x 2 cm. (iv) Abrasion just below thyroid portion of 1. x. 2cm. (v) Abrasion on the parts of thyroid size 1. 2 x 2cm. (vi) curved abrasion on frontal right ear wind pipe 0. 3 x 0. 3 cm. (vii) curved abrasion on lateral side of neck size 1. 3 cm x 0. 2 cm. There are 7 injuries found the Doctor examined him. Looking at the Doctorts report (Ex. P1), I feel that injustice has kept in and fair trial has not been done. 3 x 0. 3 cm. (vii) curved abrasion on lateral side of neck size 1. 3 cm x 0. 2 cm. There are 7 injuries found the Doctor examined him. Looking at the Doctorts report (Ex. P1), I feel that injustice has kept in and fair trial has not been done. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the petitioner that the case has not been given proper treatment by the judge and a miscarriage has crept in the case. ( 6 ) THE applicant has relied on State of M. P. v. Nathulal and State of M. P. v. Ramsingh. They lend support to this case that once summons has been issued to the prosecution witnesses the case should not be dismissed in the absence of the direction to be complied with. ( 7 ) THE revision is allowed. The judgment passed by the Court below is set aside. The case isremanded to the court concerned for re-trial in accordance with law. Revision allowed. Matter remanded. .