JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Cr. Case No. 514/78 (404/97) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for offences under Sections 408, 467, 477-A IPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioner has been facing trial for the aforesaid offences relating to the year 1973-74 on the basis of a challan which was filed with the allegations that the petitioner in capacity of a co-operative society misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,312.65. Charge-sheet was filed as long back as on 25.8.1978. There were certain other cases against the petitioner and they were all ordered to be tried jointly in exercise of power under Section 212(2) Cr.P.C. Charges were framed on 3.3.1981 and trial proceeded with a snails speed. Ultimately the Magistrate closed evidence on 19.1.1998. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 CrP.C. and the case was fixed for final arguments on 4.2.1998. Thereafter the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for presenting a number of witnesses and requested to call 17 witnesses though some of them had already reported to have been dead Learned Magistrate allowed the application and ordered that out of those 17 witnesses -- witnesses he summoned for 28.4.1998 and the remaining for 29.4.1998. He ordered to give summons by hand to the learned A.P.P. and adjourned the case for evidence of those witnesses. It was the accused himself who did not appear on 28.4.1998, though some of the witnesses did appear before the Magistrate, and therefore his bail bonds were forfeited. The case was fixed for attendance of 3 the accused on 20.6.1998 but the accused petitioner appeared on 1.6.1998 and was again granted bail. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the order of learned Magistrate summoning witnesses in order to fill up lacunae of the prosecution may be set aside and that in any case the proceedings which are very old may be set aside. 4. The petition has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor tooth and nail. I am of the view that in such a case, where defalcation of public money of a co-operative society is involved, the proceedings should not be quashed. 4. The petition has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor tooth and nail. I am of the view that in such a case, where defalcation of public money of a co-operative society is involved, the proceedings should not be quashed. However, so far as power of Magistrate to summon material witnesses is concerned he may do so at any stage of an enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate found that the witnesses whose names were cited in the list were material and, therefore, by detailed order dated 3.3.1998 he ordered to summon them. The learned Magistrate has admittedly stated in his order that A.PP who was conducting the case was careless. But in the facts and circumstances when the witnesses were material and who were not earlier summoned have been summoned by Magistrate under the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. it is not filling up the lacunae of the prosecution as the witnesses are material. 5. I do not find any case to interfere in the order of learned Magistrate dated 3.3.1998. There is no force in the petition and it is hereby dismissed. However, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to record statements of the witnesses summoned by him by order dated 3.3.1998 and I hope that the accused petitioner will definitely co-operate him in early disposal of this old case.Petition dismissed. *******