JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - The legality of the order dated 19.2.1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jajpur in I.C.C. No. 335 of 1982 has been called in question. 2. The appellant was the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jajpur. He lodged a complaint against the present respondents with the following allegations. It is alleged that on 18.7.82 at about 9 a.m. all the accused persons (respondents) forcibly entered upon the Bari of the complainant (appellant) and cut the tamarind and Asadua trees along with Manu trees standing on the same Bari. On protest by the complainant, the accused persons abused him in filthy languages, but the complainant remained silent. Accused persons thereafter removed the trees to their own Bari. In consequence thereof the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 1000/-. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint petition before the learned Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused persons. 3. Pursuant to the summons, accused persons appeared before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 before charge. It appears that on consideration of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 379, I.P.C. and thereafter the complainant and his witnesses remained absent. Thereafter, D.Ws. and N. B.Ws. were issued against them in order to procure their attendance. All such attempts by the learned Magistrate to procure attendance of the prosecution witnesses failed and as a result thereof their evidence was expunged. It is stated further that the learned Magistrate proceeded to the extent that there was no evidence against the accused persons so as to implicate them in the alleged occurrence The learned Magistrate accordingly observed that the complainant had failed to establish the charge against the accused persons. Consequently, he held that the accused persons were not guilty of the offence under Section 379, I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them under Section 248(1), Cr. P.C. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the learned Magistrate ought to have waited till all the processes are exhausted for procuring attendance of the prosecution witnesses in Court. P.C. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the learned Magistrate ought to have waited till all the processes are exhausted for procuring attendance of the prosecution witnesses in Court. He submits that the complainant is a poor man and there was communication gap between him and the lawyer conducting his case in the trial Court for securing the attendance of the witnesses. It appears that the complainant chose not to appear before the learned Magistrate after the initial statement was recorded. Although the Court issued D.Ws. and N.B.Ws. to secure their attendance in Court, the attempts of the learned Magistrate also failed to evoke response of the complainant. Faced with such situation, the learned Magistrate had no option but to record the order of acquittal. Therefore, it is the complainant who is to be blamed for this state of affairs. 5. The incident occurred in July, 1982 and the order of acquittal was passed in February, 1986. The learned counsel for the other side contends that at this stage it would be futile to direct further trial of the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the learned Magistrate has done nothing wrong justifying interference by this Court. I find no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed