JUDGMENT In this revision, a very short question is involved for consideration. In the trial pending against respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner is the complainant. It is pending for the commission of the offence under section 307 I.P.C. According to the prosecution version itself, the injured complainant was initially examined by a doctor at Vidisha but was later referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where he was examined and treated by Dr. Rathore. At the trial when the prosecution did not produce Dr. Rathore, the Court proceeded to close the evidence. But a prayer was made by the complainant that an opportunity be allowed to the complainant for summoning Dr. Rathore at his risk. The learned trial Court had allowed that prayer and the petitioner succeeded in seeking the service of summon on Dr. Rathore but on 14.8.91 when the case was taken up by the trial Court, Dr. Rathore failed to appear in the Court despite service, as has been observed by the trial Court in its order-sheet of that date. The learned trial Court instead of proceeding against the witness for his non-appearance in the Court despite service, and to adopt a coercive method, closed the case directing the trial to be listed on 30.8.91 for the examination of the accused persons. As against that order, the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner. The mode adopted by the learned trial Court is not permissible under the law. If the witness had failed to appear in the Court despite service, the learned trial Court ought to have issued a bailable warrant of arrest against the witness, but the right could not be shut in the manner adopted by the learned trial Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition succeeds. The order of the trial Court dated 14th August 1991 is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to issue the coercive process against the witness and shall make all efforts for the early disposal of the trial. The learned trial Court shall summon the witness through a bailable warrant of arrest for 24th August 1994 and shall proceed to record his statement and conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of the communication of this order. It would be the petitioner's liability to inform the Court of this order by 8th August 1994. Ordered accordingly.