J. G. CHITRA, J. ( 1 ) THE lawyers appearing for the concerned parties have been heard. ( 2 ) RECORD has also been perused. ( 3 ) IT appears from the order which has been assailed by this revision petition that the sessions trial has been directed to be expedited and completed by 15th of October, 98, by order of Division Court of this Court, Indore Bench. In view of this aspect of the matter this revision is admitted for its final hearing today and is being decided today after hearing it finally. ( 4 ) THE point of debate and controversy is the non-examination of witness Nawab alias Amar Hussain, resident of Rampur, U. P. who happens to be a person who has been interrogated during the course of investigation but not cited as a prosecution witness to be examined in the Court by the prosecution and not to be examined by it. ( 5 ) SHRI A. H. Khan, submitted that this witness is very important for the cause of defence of the petitioner but he is not being summoned by the prosecution which is under the influence of the officers of the police department. ( 6 ) SHRI Salim, counsel for the state submitted that the petitioner caused the delay in the hearing of the trial and for causing delay they are putting this excuse. This seems to be a submission of Shri Salim on the instructions given by Shri C. R. Joshi, counsel appearing for the complainant. ( 7 ) THE excuse put-forth by saying that staff members of the concerned police department were busy in maintaining the law and order can not be accepted to be true and reasonable because all the persons serving in the police department could not have been busy in the maintenance of law and order. This ground is nothing but a lame and vague excuse put-forth for non serving the summons on the said witness Nawab alias Amar Hussain. If at all, the concerned persons effecting the summons were busy in maintaining the law and order, even then it could have been done by sparing 1-2 persons by police Department and entrusting them the duty of effecting the summons on said witness, may be at Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. If at all, the concerned persons effecting the summons were busy in maintaining the law and order, even then it could have been done by sparing 1-2 persons by police Department and entrusting them the duty of effecting the summons on said witness, may be at Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. ( 8 ) IF a witness has been interrogated during the course of investigation and if his evidence is material to the cause of judging the innocence or guilt of the accused, even though the prosecution decides to drop him or not examine him as a prosecution witness, accused is entitled to examine him as a defence witness. Such opportunity cannot be denied to the accused by putting lame excuses. This attitude stands deprecated. It is nothing but denial of justice impliedly by clandestine way. It is hoped that this attitude should be abandoned as early as possible and the concerned police department who has been entrusted with the duty of serving of notice or summons, shall stand to the demand of time. The courts are not expected to give importance to such lame and unreasonable excuses which would be resulting in denial of justice to a person who has been indicated as an accused in criminal trial. Courts have to keep in mind that none can be punished without following due process of law. Due process of law includes all opportunities and amenities to the person aggrieved as provided by law. ( 9 ) THE Division Court of this Bench has ordered the trial Court to complete the trial within the time limit by the end of 15-10-98 and therefore, the trial Court should issue the summons immediately to said witness for his examination in the Court as a defence witness. If statement happens to be recorded during the course of investigation which the trial Court should ascertain by perusing the case diary. Thereafter trial should be fixed for recording the evidence of that witness on 30-9-98 in the early working hours of the trial court. Thereafter, trial should proceed de die in diem, for the purpose of complying with the directions of the Division Court of Indore Bench. ( 10 ) TRIAL Courts are not to hurry-up at the cost of justice for keeping themselves within the time limit fixed by the High Court. Thereafter, trial should proceed de die in diem, for the purpose of complying with the directions of the Division Court of Indore Bench. ( 10 ) TRIAL Courts are not to hurry-up at the cost of justice for keeping themselves within the time limit fixed by the High Court. If there are good grounds the trial court can make a prayer to the High Court for extension of time. When such remedy is available, the haste in deciding the case at the cost of someone connected with the trial is totally deprecated. The concerned trial Judge to keep in mind and in the case the trial should be postponed and the Court (sic) diem should be deviated. Of course the trial Court is at liberty to deviate if any deviation is required on compelling grounds in the interest of justice for which permission be sought within time. ( 11 ) THUS the revision petition stands disposed of in view of the observations made above. ( 12 ) REGISTRAR is directed to despatch a copy of this order to the trial Court at an early date if necessary even by sending per messenger to Ujjain. Order accordingly. .