JUDGMENT S.K. Kar, J. 1. This revision petition u/s 397/401 read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against orders dated 21.11.2002 and 10.12.2002 passed by the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Aizawl in case No. Gr. No. 1388/2000 u/Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 380, IPC; (Corresponding to Aizawl P.S. Case No.466/200. 2. The petitioner Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Customs, North Eastern India, Shillong, submits that government Cheque book bearing Sl. No. A/ 5-481800 which was kept in the Deputy Commissioner, Customs Division, Aizawl was missing from the office with effect from 26-7-2000. The fact of missing of the Cheque Book was bought into the notice to the Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Aizawl and the petitioner came to know from the said Asst. General Manager of the State Bank that an amount of Rs.4,51,200/- has been withdrawn vide Cheque No. A-5-481733 dt. 21.7.2000 being encashed on 22.7.2000. 3. F.I.R. was lodged before the police and the case above mentioned was registered. At the relevant time respondent No. 1 was Inspector and respondent No.2 was working as UDC in Customs Division Office, Aizawl. Police during the course of investigation recovered some money and chargesheet was submitted against respondents no. 1 and 2 alongwith another accused Miss. Lalmuankimi daughter in law of the respondent No.2). During investigation it was found that signature of the Administrative Officer of the Customs Division, Aizwal, Sri Biswajit Bhattacharjee was forged after stealing this cheque book and the cheque written forging the signature and was encashed and the same incriminating Cheque No. A/5-481733 dt. 21.7.2000 was recovered from the Shillong office of Custom Department during course of investigation. 4. The impugned orders goes as follows:- 21.11.2002. Both the accused on bail are present curt is adjourned as none of the P.W. is present. The prosecution case is thus closed for default. Issue summon to the accused Fix 10.12.2002. Sd/-(SAINGURASAILO) Magistrate 1st Class District Council Court." "10.12.2002. Both the accused namely Abul Hassan and D.P. Haokip who have been on bail are present. Today is fixed for examination of accused. U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the accuseds are examined. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the two accuseds persons committed an offence by stealing Govt. cheque books belonging to Central Customs and Excise, Aizawl and subsequently withdraw Govt., money amounting to Rs.4,51,200/-. The accuseds were charge sheeted u/ss420/465/568/471/380, IPC. Today is fixed for examination of accused. U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the accuseds are examined. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the two accuseds persons committed an offence by stealing Govt. cheque books belonging to Central Customs and Excise, Aizawl and subsequently withdraw Govt., money amounting to Rs.4,51,200/-. The accuseds were charge sheeted u/ss420/465/568/471/380, IPC. Charge under aforesaid sections of law was considered and framed against both the accuseds who pleaded not guilty but claimed for trial. During the trial prosecution witnesses were summoned on several occasions. However, none of the prosecution witness has turned up to adduce evidence despite exhaustion of process. The prosecution case was at last closed and the accuseds examined today. Both the accuseds claim innocence as done before. In as much as the prosecution fails to prove the case this court finds no alternative but to acquit the accuseds honourably. Accordingly it is done so. Seized cash amounting to Rs. 1,33,300/- which was released on Jimmanama on 11.9.2000 to Shri Biswamit Bhattacharjee, Administrative Officer, Customs Division, Aizawl shall be returned to the rightful owners. All the bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. All other S/S, if any, be returned to the rightful owner. Give copy to all concerned. Sd/-(SAINGURASAILO) Magistrate 1st Class, Aizawal District: Aizawal. 5. A plain reading of the impugned orders will convince that there was no proper application of judicial mind and in a most mechanical way the aforesaid orders were passed ending the trial of the accused persons in acquittal on the pretext that there was 'a default' on the part of the prosecution. This cannot be accepted as a proper way of administration of justice. The Court below has failed to appreciate that in most of the criminal cases the complainant is the State although the case may be initiated at the instance of the private person being aggrieved/victim of the crime. Court has got a duty to discharge while acting as a wing of the State in its due discharge of duty of administration of Criminal justice and in this context it was held as follows: The public interest demands that criminal justice should be swift and sure, that the guilty should be punished while events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as possible, which is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. M.S. Sherif v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1954 S.C.397: 1954 Crl. L.J. 1019. In another case a similar view was expressed which also goes as follows: It is now settled law that criminal proceeding is not a proceeding for vindication of a private grievance but, it is a proceeding initiated for the purpose of punishment to the offender in the interest of the society. It is for maintaining stability and orderliness in the society that certain acts are constituted offices and the right is given to any citizen to set the machinery of the criminal law in motion for the purpose of bringing the offender to book. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others, A.I.R. 1987 S.C.877; 1987 Crl.L.J.793; 1986 J.T.I 132. 6. No doubt it is the burden of the prosecution, i.e. the State, to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt before he is convicted, but this also is a fact that court cannot be oblivious to its duty to safeguard public interest. Administration of criminal justice is to keep law and order and to punish those persons who dare to violate the Penal Code. If evidence is not forthcoming after exhausting of all processes of the court than the question would be different. But simply on the ground that there was laches on the part of the prosecution a criminal case cannot end in acquittal. Similarly, in all criminal trials a definite decision is to be arrived at in so far the title of the property incriminating or otherwise seized during the investigation to pass an appropriate order by way of disposal of the property as per provision u/s 452, Cr.P.C. Usually if and when the prosecution is negligent courts are in the habit of issuing summons; and if summons are not effective, bailable warrant of arrest and lastly a non-bailable warrant of arrest to cause production of the witnesses cited by prosecution as witnesses to prove the case. Here the impugned orders will show that there was non-action on the part of the court below to that effect in addition of the orders being casual type. Accordingly, I find in the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 7. Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.11.2002 and 10.12.2002 are set aside. Here the impugned orders will show that there was non-action on the part of the court below to that effect in addition of the orders being casual type. Accordingly, I find in the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 7. Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.11.2002 and 10.12.2002 are set aside. Case is send down for fresh disposal in accordance with law by affording all reasonable opportunities to the prosecution for production of witnesses or taking all other legal steps for the ends of justice. The respondents/accused are directed in absentia to appear before the court within 30 days from today failing which trial court will take appropriate actions under Cr.P.C. for compelling their appearances to face the trial before it. The trial court will also pass proper order for disposal of seized money by ascertaining the ownership or otherwise in accordance with law at the end of the trial. Petition allowed