1. This reference has arisen out of a Revision Petition presented before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur against an order dated: 21-12-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur whereby the evidence of the complainant has been closed in a complaint. 2. The complainant was leading evidence. Petitioner sought indulgence of the court summoning of two witnesses namely Doctor Rajinder Parshad and Abdual Majid constable and also sought permission to deposit the witnesses expenses. The court permitted to deposit the witness expenses and summons were issued by the trail court securing the presence of the witnesses. The complainant also examined Mst. Roshanh, Nama and Kali besides herself in support of her complaint. The trial court appears to have issued numerous summons for procuring the presence of PWs Dr. Rajinder Parshad and Abdul Majid constable but their presence could not be procured. A report was received from the Medical Suptd. District Hospital, Udhampur that Mr. Rajinder Parshad has been transferred to Jammu and summons, thus, could not be executed. After receipt of this report, the trial court directed the complainant to file fresh address of the Dr. Rajinder Parshad within two days enabling the court to summon him. On 21-12-2000, the evidence of the complainant was closed on account of failure of the complainant for filing of fresh address of the said witness. The complainant thereafter was fixed for recording the statements of the accused under Section 342 Cr. P.C. 3. The order of closing the evidence of the complainant was questioned by means of Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur who after appreciating the dispute has made a reference to this court recommending therein to quash the order of the trial Magistrate for the reason that the order of the trial court is not in accordance with law, and that the trial court ought to have made an effort to summon the witnesses rather imposing it upon the complainant. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Counsel of the petitioner is not present. 5. The identical controversy as involved in this reference has already been decided by this court in case titled State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. reported in 1987 KLJ page 635. This court had again an occasion to decide an identical controversy in Criminal Reference No. 15 of 2001 titled State Vs. Counsel of the petitioner is not present. 5. The identical controversy as involved in this reference has already been decided by this court in case titled State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. reported in 1987 KLJ page 635. This court had again an occasion to decide an identical controversy in Criminal Reference No. 15 of 2001 titled State Vs. Sethi Ram decided on 05-11-2001 observing as under: - ..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 & Ors. 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 provisions 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.� The court while dealing with this proposition 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 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. The impugned order thus, needs interference as it has caused miscarriage of justice.� The present case is fully covered by the judgment (supra) and it needs to be disposed of accordingly. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I have no reason to disagree with the recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur. Accordingly reference is accepted and the order dated: 21-12-2000 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Udhampur is set aside. The trial court shall summon the witnesses who are Government employees and record their statements. Record be returned to the trial court.