D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 28. 11. 1995 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla in CCNo. 64 of 1992. ( 2 ) THE accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 486 IPC. As the prosecution failed to examine the witnesses and as the de facto complainant and also the Assistant Public Prosecutor failed to appear before the Court, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is brief is that the de facto complainant is the manufacturer and distributor of beedies under the name and style of "vakil Brand Beedies" in Kurnool District and he is having dealers for his product in various taluks in Kurnool Town. As he is sustaining loss in his business, he verified his beedi stocks and sales in retail shops in Kurnool District. In this process at Koilakuntla, he found the accused selling un-authorised and substandard beedies in the name and style of "vakil Brand Beedies", in counterfeit printing packets. Therefore, he filed a complaint in Koilakuntla Police Station, which is registered as Cr. No. 9/1992 under Sections 420 and 486 IPC. ( 4 ) FROM the impugned judgment it appears that the matter underwent several adjournments to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and when finally the matter was posted to 14. 11. 1995 for trial and on that day, only the accused was present and the prosecution witnesses remained absent. Hence, the S. I. of Police who was present in the Court on that day, was directed to get the presence of prosecution witnesses positively on 28. 11. 1995 and in case of default, the Court below observed that the prosecution evidence stands closed. On 28. 11. 1995 only the accused was present and the prosecution witnesses remained absent and even the Assistant public Prosecutor also remained absent. Further the S. I. of Police who was directed to take steps in serving summons on the witnesses also failed to initiate any action in this regard. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the above circumstances, the Court below exercising the power under Section 248 (1) Cr. PC, acquitted the accused. ( 6 ) IN my considered view, the Court below has misconstrued Section 248 (1) Cr. PC. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the above circumstances, the Court below exercising the power under Section 248 (1) Cr. PC, acquitted the accused. ( 6 ) IN my considered view, the Court below has misconstrued Section 248 (1) Cr. PC. This section contemplates passing of an order of acquital only after giving a finding on merits and not otherwise. In the instant case, the trial has not yet commenced for the absence of the prosecution witnesses and also for non-cooperation of the investigating agency. In such circumstances, in order to compel the presence of the prosecution witnesses, the Court below ought to have invoked the relevant provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code instead of passing an order of acquittal. ( 7 ) FURTHER it is pertinent to note that the present case is a warrant case. Therefore, just because the prosecution witnesses or the Assistant Public Prosecutor or the de facto complainant failed to appear, the Court below cannot mechanically invoke Section 248 (1) Cr. PC. This course is open for the Court below, only when the case is a summons case i. e. , under Section 256 Cr. PC when the complainant is absent, the Court can pass an order of acquittal. ( 8 ) THE present case being a warrant case, if the complainant is absent, the Court below can discharge the accused under Section 249 Cr. PC, but the Court below cannot pass an order of acquittal invoking provisions under Section 248 (1) Cr. PC, inasmuch as this provision can be invoked only on appreciation of merits but not otherwise. And as stated above, when the prosecution witnesses failed to appear before the Court for adducing evidence, it is incumbent on the Court to see that their presence is secured by invoking the relevant provisions under the Cr. PC. ( 9 ) FURTHER the attitude on the part of the Police Officer and the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned is very deplorable and if I may say so, it is highly despicable. The Public Prosecutor who is supposed to be the responsible officer of the Court should lend all his assistance and also should take all reasonable pains to see that the real culprit does not go scot-free and equally same with the Police Officer. The Public Prosecutor who is supposed to be the responsible officer of the Court should lend all his assistance and also should take all reasonable pains to see that the real culprit does not go scot-free and equally same with the Police Officer. If this unpalatable attitude on the part of the investigating agency, as exhibited in the present case, is given a lenient view or left un-reprimanded, there is likelihood of the public faith reposed on their system getting deteriorated and shattered. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, for the foregoing reason, though the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law, but in view of the lethargic and indifferent attitude of the investigating agency, I am compelled to confirm the same. ( 11 ) FURTHER viewing from another angle, the offence is of the year 1992 and, therefore, if fresh trial is ordered, particularly in a case where the de facto complainant himself has not evinced any interest and remained indifferent in prosecuting the case, no useful purpose would be served. Accordingly I pass the order as under; ( 12 ) THE criminal appeal is dismissed. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, the Director General of Police is directed to identify the Police Officer at Koilakuntla, Kurnool District who conducted the present investigation at the relevant point of time and take appropriate steps against him. Further, the Director of Prosecutions is also directed to identify the Assistant Public Prosecutor who conducted the present case and initiate appropriate action against him. ( 14 ) OFFICE is directed to mark a copy of this order to (1) Director General of Police, Kurnoof range; (2) Director of Prosecutions, Hyderabad and (3) the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, Karimnagar District.