Judgment : 1. This revision was sought to be admitted by the second witness by name Dhandapani, who is the Secretary of Vellakoil Sarvodaya Sangham against the two accused who are employees of the said Sangam, to challenge the judgment rendered in C.C.No.148 of 1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, Periyar District on 9.1 2. 1994 acquitting the second accused for the offences under Sections 409 and 477A of Indian Penal Code on two counts. .2. Since the second accused denied his complicity in toto for the offences above referred when questioned by the court below after furnishing all the necessary copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution, the trial court commenced the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution numbering 11 as P.Ws.1 to 1 1. Of the 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.5 to 11 were treated as hostile as they had not supported the prosecution case, however, the core of the evidence given by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 & 4 clinchingly renders support to the prosecution case and be that as it may, the trial court has rendered a finding which is inconclusive and incomplete. After having recorded the oral evidence of 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and 30 documents marked on their behalf as Ex.P-1 to P-30 and the evidence of one witness examined on behalf of the accused and two documents relied on behalf of the accused as Exs.D-1 and D-2, the trial court has rendered its finding to the effect that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and that the enturstment to and the liability of the accused had not at all been established by the prosecution and accordingly acquitted the accused by passing the impugned judgment. Aggrieved at this, P.W.2 the Secretary of the Vellakoil Sarvodaya Sangam being an aggrieved person has come forward with this revision. On ordering notice of motion, the learned Government Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the third respondent. Since the first accused had not at all attended the trial proceedings, though it was commenced, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him, which is still pending execution. Accordingly, case against the first accused for the relevant charges has been split up and the trial was commenced and proceeded against the second accused and consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal was recorded. .3. Accordingly, case against the first accused for the relevant charges has been split up and the trial was commenced and proceeded against the second accused and consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal was recorded. .3. I have heard Mr.A.K.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. He drew my attention to the core of the entire evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 4 to the extent of the capacity of the first accused as Manager and the second respondent as his assistant entrusted with the day to day discharge of their duties, effecting the sales and collecting the sale proceeds through proper accounting for and on behalf of the branches of Sarvodaya Sangam concerned. He has also pointed out that P.Ws.5 to 11 though were the consumers expected to support the prosecution, did not render any support and consequently, they were treated as hostile. However, the case ended in the acquittal of the second accused and the case against the first accused is still pending disposal. The main grievance projected by the Bar on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the Sub Inspector who registered the complaint and investigated the case has not at all come to the Court nor has given any evidence which was the main cause for the acquittal of the accused. The Sub Inspector of Police by name Suryaprakash was cited as witness No. 15 in the charge sheet in the final report. Looking into the impugned judgment in para 13, it is noticed that the learned trial Magistrate has observed that the investigating officer, now promoted as Inspector, despite summoned on several occasions and on receipt of the same, did not come to the court nor gave any evidence. On 12. 1994 itself the summons were sent to him with the final report through the Inspector and the higher officials, however, he did not come and for the said reasonings the Assistant Public Prosecutor in-charge of the prosecution had closed the examination of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, attributing the investigating officer as the main reason for the acquittal, the learned trial Magistrate has recorded his finding in favour of the second accused which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct and such finding was erroneous causing great prejudice to the affected person viz., P.W.2 the Secretary of the Sarvodaya Sangam. .4. Therefore, attributing the investigating officer as the main reason for the acquittal, the learned trial Magistrate has recorded his finding in favour of the second accused which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct and such finding was erroneous causing great prejudice to the affected person viz., P.W.2 the Secretary of the Sarvodaya Sangam. .4. On going through the impugned order, after hearing the learned Government Advocate, I had instructed him to get the concerned investigating Officer who is now working as Inspector at Thiruvannamalai in a different district and in compliance with the direction, the Inspector of Police (Crimes), Thiruvannamalai Police Station, who was the investigating Officer, made his appearance in this Court and when questioned, he feigned any knowledge of the receipt of his summons and gave several explanations for his non-appearance before the trial court on number of occasions. However, I asked him to file a sworn affidavit. Accordingly, on 17. 1996 the Inspector filed a sworn affidavit into court explaining the circumstances which led to his non-appearance before the trial court on several occasions and by so doing he tendered his open apology and undertook further that on the receipt of summons, he would attend the trial court hereafter and give evidence for the reason that it was only he, who conducted the investigation and filed the final report against both the accused. Being an officer in-charge of the crime detection, on taking cognisance of the commission of an offence under Indian penology and having done the investigation and filed the final report against the persons who committed the offences, it must his duty to know the details of various stages and the manner in which the proceedings were going on in the court below and that must be the incumbent duty of every police officer. Being a police officer clamped with the power and uniform, it is not only the indicative of his smartness and his integrity and sincerity added with onerous responsibility to the department in which he works but also to the society which must be inherent to every officer. Being a police officer clamped with the power and uniform, it is not only the indicative of his smartness and his integrity and sincerity added with onerous responsibility to the department in which he works but also to the society which must be inherent to every officer. If the explanation given in the instant case is looked into in the context of the above inherent and basic necessity, I am not inclined to accept his explanation, but however, for an officer of his cadre with no blemishes so far it may not be proper to render any remarks for his actions. Enough for me at this stage to accept his explanation in full in view of his undertaking given in the open court that he would give evidence by appearing before the trial court till the case is over. Accordingly, the explanation given by the investigating officer Mr.Suryaprakash is hereby accepted with no more observations adverse or otherwise. 5. The case against both the accused are yet to be over. According to the observation by the learned trial Magistrate the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far was inconclusive and incomplete, and for the non-co-operation of the police concerned, it was the finding of the learned Magistrate that the Assistant Public Prosecutor in-charge of the prosecution had necessarily to report that the case has come to a close and accordingly the case ended in acquittal. All these things above referred would clearly mean that the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty not by rendering their performance in full before the court of law, but by being indifferent in attending the court and giving evidence. Therefore, under these circumstances, after having gone through the impugned order, I am of the firm view that the acquittal of the second accused on the basis of an incomplete performance of the prosecution is not correct and the ends of justice would require me to intervene in the impugned order by setting aside the same, but, however, remitting back the whole case to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam for examination of P.W.15, the investigating Officer and dispose the case in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. To do so, learned Magistrate is hereby directed to issue summons through proper channel to the investigating Officer, who is now working as Inspector of Police, Crimes, Thiruvannamalai and get him examined fully and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law. 6. In the result, for all the aforesaid reasonings and for the compliance of the directions given above, the revision is admitted and disposed of accordingly. The judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.148 of 1990 dated 12. 1994 is hereby set aside as perverse and without any basis or appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of for fresh disposal of the case.