1. This Criminal Reference has arisen out of an order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua whereby he has closed the evidence of the prosecution. This order was challenged in a Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua who after appreciating the controversy, facts and law has recommended for setting aside the order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent is not present. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that after framing of the charge accused remained absent from 28.6.1996 to 25.1.1999 continuously. He appeared before the court on 12.2.1999 and again absented from 5.4.1999 to 14-10-1999. Accused again appeared on 30-10-1999 but absented from 6.12.1999 till 4.8.2000. He again absented on 19.10.2000 till 28-11-2000 and put his appearance on 23-12-2000. The prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. During this period of three months prosecution was provided 5 opportunities to produce evidence to prove the guilt against the accused u/s 304-A, 279/337 RPC. It is further seen from the record that summons shown to have been issued were not handed over to the Chief Prosecuting Officer for service of the witnesses. It is also not made out that summons were issued for service of the Doctor and without taking recourse by the court for summoning the said witness, the prosecution evidence has been closed. The court should have made an endeavour to summon the Government employee witness. Such a proposition came before the court in case State Vs. Joginder Singh and others reported in 1987 KLJ page 635 wherein the court while appreciating such situation has observed that :- In the instant case it appears from the record that the trial court has completely ignored the provision of Law relating to procuring the attendance and recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is apparent from the record that no process was issued by the Court for the service of the prosecution witnesses who were all Government employees.� 4. The court while dealing with this proposition has held:- It is the practice of the courts in our state based upon the rules for guidance of Criminal Courts and instructions issued by the High Court from time to time to secure the attendance of Government official witnesses by issuing process itself and not to remain dependent on the prosecuting agency alone. In the instant case, the procedure adopted by the trial court was illegal and the court below has passed the order erroneously and illegally resulting in the miscarriage of justice, it is a fit case in which the revisional power has to be exercised in the interest of justice.� In this case also the Magistrate has misdirected himself and erroneously recorded the impugned order without making any effort even to summon the prosecution witnesses who are Government employees and closed the evidence as the impugned order thus needs interference as it has caused miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reason I have no reason to disagree with the recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua. Accordingly reference is accepted and the order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua is set-aside. The court shall summon the prosecution witnesses who are Government employees and rest of the witnesses shall be produced by the prosecution on a date fixed by the court. Record be returned to the trial court.