ORDER P.K. Tripathy, J. - This revision is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission. 2. It appears from the impugned judgment in S.T. Case No. 80-A of 1997/Trial Case No. 37 of 1997 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Angul that there was no evidence available in the case record which could prove that accused-opposite party Bishnu Prasad Agrawalla set F.I.R. to the truck in question. Trial Court took note of the fact situation that the most relevant witness, namely, Bahadur who had seen the accused at or around the place of occurrence some time before the arson was detected, was not examined by the prosecution. The other witness who stated about the accused passing through that road in a scooter was not treated as sufficient evidence to prove the allegation against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This approach of the trial Court in assessing the evidence and appreciating the facts and circumstances is not found to be unreasonable, illegal or perverse. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is the informant in the case, states that under the given facts and circumstances that Bahadur should have been examined and now also this Court can pass appropriate order for his examination. While opposing to the aforesaid contention of the Petitioner, the opposite party No. 1 states that at the trial stage neither the prosecution nor the informant took any step to examine that Bahadur as a witness and even the trial Court did not exercise his power u/s 311, Code of Criminal Procedure to examine that witness and now after a full dressed trial if the trial will be reopened it will seriously prejudice the accused. 4. The aforesaid contention of the accused/opposite party is found to be reasonable. It is not proper at this stage to re-open the trial when prosecution has not shown anxiety at any stage, so also the informant/petitioner. Under the given circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal. 5. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that a trial Court should not mechanically proceed with a trial i.e., to say should not be a mute observer of anything which happens during trial of a case in his Court. Under the given circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal. 5. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that a trial Court should not mechanically proceed with a trial i.e., to say should not be a mute observer of anything which happens during trial of a case in his Court. In our system of delivery of criminal justice system, it is the Court which is to administer justice with the aid and assistance from the prosecution and defence. If either or both of the said two wings do not assist that does not mean that Court shall refuse or neglect to impart justice. Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure. provides ample power and jurisdiction to the trial Court to summon and examine witnesses if it is essential for a just decision of the case. It is no reflected in the impugned judgment that any such anxiety was shown by the trial Court. As already stated, this Court does not fell it proper to re-open the trial at this stage when there is grim chance of serving any useful purpose. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the Criminal revision is not admitted and dismissed accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed