Honble MADAN, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice. Since the case has been heard and is being finally decided by this court at the admission stage itself, formal notice to the accused is waived. (2). This revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order, dated 8.1.1997 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati in criminal case No. 441/87 titled State vs. Durga Ram and Another, whereby the learned trial court had acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 427 and 448/149 IPC. (3). The case of the complainant in short is that in pursuance of an F.I.R. dated 29.8.1987 which was lodged by the petitioner-complainant with police station Fatehpur Shekhawati against the accused-non-petitioners, the accused on the day of occurrence, i.e., 29.8.1987 had criminally trespassed into the premises of the complainant with apparent motive of assaulting the complainant and causing grie- vous hurt to the members of the complainants family. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR the police filed a challan before the competent court where charge were framed against the accused non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 22 for the aforesaid offences. The accused had contested the case of the prosecution and had claimed trial, accordingly the trial commenced. On 20.12.1996 the trial court closed issuance of process after recording the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses during trial and the case was fixed for recording the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 3.1.1997. At that stage an application was moved by the complainant for recording the statement of Smt. Chandri wife of the prosecution witnesses but she could not be examined since the prayer of the complainant for examining her as a witness was declined. Thereafter another application was moved by Mannaram, the father of the complainant, on the ground that a fair opportunity should be provided to the complainant to lead evidence by examining two more witnesses, namely, Ramavatar and Smt. Chandri but that request too was declined and the applications came to be rejected vide order, dated 3.1.1997 on the ground that since the matter has been pending since long it was not reasonable to accede to the request of the complainant and the prosecution evidence was closed without giving any further opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. (4). (4). During the course of hearing it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not possible for the complainant to have examined the aforesaid witnesses since they were out stationed witnesses and, therefore, reasonable opportunity was required in the interest of justice to make them available before the court but the trial court arbitrarily rejected the said applications and instead proceeded to examine the accused persons by recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (5). Thereafter an application was moved by the complainant to the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar on 4.1.1997 with a prayer to transfer the case to any other competent court and the learned Sessions Judge declined the petitioners request for transfer of the case and instead passed the impugned order on 8.1.1997 by which the complainant was given an opportunity to lead evidence on 3.3.1997 with a direc- tion to the trial court to record the evidence of the witnesses if so made available on the said date, and instead of allowing the complainant to lead evidence before the trial court on 3.3.1997 as aforesaid, the learned trial court proceeded with utmost hurry by making flagrant disregard to the aforesaid direction of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar and its impugned order, dated 8.1.1997 against which the pe- titioner has come up now before this court by way of present revision petition and decided the case finally on merits resulting in acquittal of the accused persons. (6). Prima-facie I am of the view that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner merit consideration and there is obvious fallacy in the impugned order, dated 8.1.1997 of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati in view of the fact that it was the bounden duty of the trial court to have given fair opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence and thereafter give another opportunity to the accused to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any. Instead of adopting the proper procedure as directed earlier vide order, dated 9.1.1997 of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, it was neither justified nor warranted for the trial court to have proceeded with utmost haste by finally deciding the case on merits vide impugned order dated 8.1.1997 and which obviously deserves to be quashed and set aside. (7). As a result of the above discussions the revision petition is allowed. (7). As a result of the above discussions the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 8.1.1997 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati in criminal case No. 441/87 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the trial court to proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is further directed that the trial court shall issue necessary process for summoning the accused of the first instance and thereafter proceed with the trial in accordance with law with a further direction that a fair opportunity of leading the remaining evidence, if any, produced on behalf of the complainant as well as the evidence to be led on behalf of the accused. As a matter of fact it was the duty of the trial court to have awaited the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar instead of proceeding with the matter by hearing and finally deciding the case on merit vide the impugned order, dated 8.1.1997.