JUDGMENT Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. Heard the petitioner, State and the learned counsel appearing for the acquitted accused persons. 2. Shortly stated, the facts of this case are that on 31.8.1981, at about 3.00 p.m. the accused persons Babua Hembrem, Porana Hembram and Sanju Hembram along with other associates broken the main gate of the factory and over powering all the security guards entered in the shed No. 12 and began to beat the workers. They wanted to kill the Manager of the factory and when they did not locate the Manager, they ransacked the entire office and broken telephone connection. The accused persons encircled one Sachida Nand Deo and assaulted him with tangi causing grievous injuries. On the written and typed information of B.K. Jha, Manager of Dabur Gram Factory, the Jasidih PS instituted FIR against 14 accused persons. The charge-sheet as submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 14.12.1995, charges were framed under Sections 307, 447, 147, 148 and 149, IPC against all the accused persons. On perusal of charge, it transpires that one Sachida Nand Deo was tried to be killed; therefore, charge under Sections 307 and 149, IPC was framed against "all the accused persons for having voluntarily caused hurt to Inder Bahadur and others. 3. It appears that during trial, only one witness was examined out of 23 cited in the charge-sheet. PW 1 and 2 are very formal witnesses. They are the Advocates Clerks and identified the signature of the I.O., who drew the FIR. Only Sachida Nand Deo is the PW 3 and he supported the occurrence and did not identify the accused; therefore, the learned trial Court closed the evidence and acquitted all the accused persons by the impugned judgment. 4. The revision has been filed on the ground that the learned trial Court, without exhausting the processes for securing the attendance of the witnesses, had closed the prosecution case and thus, there has been miscarriage of justice and consequently, this revision has been preferred. 5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. The charges were framed, as stated above, on 14.12.1995 and thereafter 20 adjournments were given and on 21st adjournment, the prosecution case was closed and the case was disposed of. 5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. The charges were framed, as stated above, on 14.12.1995 and thereafter 20 adjournments were given and on 21st adjournment, the prosecution case was closed and the case was disposed of. It appears that on 4.2.1996, the prosecution evidence was closed and on the 4.2.1996, the statement of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr PC was recorded but the case was adjourned to 20.2.1996 for argument and then after hearing the argument on 20.2.1996, the case was adjourned for six days. Though there was no noting for judgment but ultimately, the acquittal order was passed. On perusal of the entire order-sheets, it does not appear that on any date, any summon was issued, what to say about other processes i.e. non-bailable warrant of arrest or through any other agency, to secure the attendance of the witnesses. Every order says, "prosecution to produce witnesses" and the prosecution was such that it was sleeping idly. Even no warning was given that if the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses, the prosecution evidence should be closed. True it is that the case should not be lingered indefinitely. Equally true it is that a Court has to see that justice is done and in that object, the Court should not remain passively a stenographer writing dictation but it should have remembered that it should be the Judge if the prosecution was callous, then it was its duty to take them to task also. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution evidence had been closed without having taken steps for securing the attendance of the witnesses. Thus, this judgment of acquittal is not completely based on merit and therefore, it requires interference. The impugned judgment is set aside. The opposite parties must surrender before the court below. Thereafter, the revisionist shall produce all the witnesses within three months and if by that time, the revisionist fails to produce the witnesses, then the case shall not only be closed, but judgment shall be passed awarding adequate compensation, as the trial Court thinks fit, to be paid by the revisionist to the opposite parties because in the event the revisionist fails to produce the prosecution witnesses, it will be deemed that he was simply interested in harassing the accused persons.