Honble KHAN, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the proceedings of the lower court. (2). In this case a police report for offence U/s. 323 and 324 IPC was filed before the learned Magistrate on 20.12.83. On that day Hanuman, accused, was present and process was issued against Dashrath Singh and Prahlad, accused. Dashrath Singh was granted exemption from personal attendance through his counsel on the adjourned date of hearing, i.e. 11.5.84. Prahlad, accused, had also appeared on3.7.84. It appears that thereafter Prahlad, accused, did not appear and warrants of arrest were issued against him. Rest of the two accused, Hanuman and Dashrath Singh, continued to attend the court. Prahlad accused appeared on 6.2.86 and was released on bail. Thereafter Dashrath Singh, accused, again did not appear and the case is still being adjourned for procuring the attendance of Dashrath Singh. (2). The proceedings of the lower court present a sorry state of affairs and exhibit lack of knowledge of relevant provisions of law on the part of the trial Magistrate. Once the accused had put in appearance through their counsel, the case could have very easily been proceeded in the absence of the accused persons as their counsel could have helped the progress of the case. Even if one or the otheraccused had disappeared, on one or two dates and even more and his attendance was not being procured, it was open to the learned Magistrate to have separated the trial of that accused and proceeded with the trial of those, who had put in appearance before him. The ability and competancy of a Magistrate, or for that matter of any court, lie in making progress of the case, when that can be done bygranting exemption to an accused through his counsel and not in adjourning the case on the ground of the absence of the accused, whose interests are duly safeguarded by his counsel in his absence. Exemption from personal attendance through counsel should not be made a ground of adjournment of the case. Exemption should be granted to make progress in the trial and not to delay the trial. (4). In the present case for a number of times the warrants were issued but they were never returned, executed or un-executed. Exemption from personal attendance through counsel should not be made a ground of adjournment of the case. Exemption should be granted to make progress in the trial and not to delay the trial. (4). In the present case for a number of times the warrants were issued but they were never returned, executed or un-executed. The State, which is the prosecutor in such cases, is expected to proceed against the officials manning the prosecuting and the process serving machinery. Successful prosecutions help prevention of crime which is one of the main responsibility of the State for the deve-lopment and progress of its polity and society. If prosecutions are callously and carelessly taken by the State machinery, it may lead to lawlessness in the end which is a situation to be avoided at all cost in any society, developed or under-developed. (5). Speedy trial has been recognised as a fundamental right of a litigant under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such right of a citizen cannot be allowed to be frustra-ted by the actions of the State machinery. The prosecuting and process-serving machineries of the State are required to be geared up in the interest of the administration of criminal justice. Therefore, there is every need to hold the officers of those agencies responsible and accountable for their careiessness and callous attitude towards the progress of the criminal trials. The prosecutor should thereforebe stressed upon to obtain the process by making applications to the court for the purpose and to send it to the process serviing agency. If the officer responsible to serve the process fails to return the summons or other process and the State fails to produce their witnesses, the court should not ordinarily take upon itself the responsibility of procuring the attendance of such witnesses until and unless thematter falls within the later part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. Infact the job of the court starts where the parties had exercised their respective rights to get justice with the assistance of the court. The courts cannot be allowed to be turned into prosecutors only because the officers of the State do not administer the law or do not assist the court in disposing the cases. The courts cannot be allowed to be turned into prosecutors only because the officers of the State do not administer the law or do not assist the court in disposing the cases. These were perhaps some of the considerations which found favour with their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case of Common Cause vs. U.O.I. (1), while directing dropping of the prosecutions in such cases where the offences were minor and compoundable and trials had not been commenced for years together due to the non-appearance of the accused. The present case is one of such cases. (6). In the present case the offences alleged to have been committed in the year 1983, were not only bailable and compoundable but also punishable with three years imprisonment maximum. The observations made by their Lordships in thecase of Common Cause (supra) apply to the facts of the present case on all fours. (7). In view of the above, the prosecution of all the three accused in the court of the trial Magistrate is considered to be abuse of the process of law and is, therefore, quashed and the proceedings dropped. The warrants, issued against such accused as have not put in appearance before the court, shall be called backun-executed and shall stand cancelled. (8). The petition is allowed.