JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.--We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor both on IA-I as also on merits. So far as IA-I is concerned, for the reasons set out, the delay is condoned and the IA-I is allowed. 2. We were required to examine the merits of the case for the purpose of deciding whether to condone the delay or not. We are also required to do this to ascertain as to whether this Appeal has the possibility of being allowed or not, because otherwise issuance of notice to the Respondents-accused would not be either fair or correct. The submission canvassed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is that the trial Court ought not to have been in a hurry for the purpose of closing the case and discharging the accused. His submission is that very often the Police run into difficulties with regard to securing the witnesses and keeping them present and that the trial Courts must exercise some degree of indulgence in these matters. 3. We do not dispute the correctness of this submission, but we do find in this case that the trial Court had given the prosecution more than adequate opportunity, despite which they were only able to produce the Doctor and none of the other witness were forthcoming. In such a situation, there is no obligation on the trial Court to keep on indefinitely adjourning the cases, because the Courts must also take cognizance of the fact that where the incident is relatively old, as has happened in this case, since this incident dates back to the year 1996 an furthermore in a situation where the parties themselves lose interest in the litigation, merely keeping alive the proceeding is contraindicated. The submission before us is that the order be set aside and that a fresh opportunity be given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. 4. In our considered view, the incident is not one of seriousness and consequently, if the witnesses could not be produced despite efforts on the earlier occasion, we see no possibility of the situation improving at this later point of time. Moreover, now that seven years have elapsed, the actual quality of the evidence even if the witnesses appear will be so very poor that no conviction would at all be possible for this reason. Moreover, now that seven years have elapsed, the actual quality of the evidence even if the witnesses appear will be so very poor that no conviction would at all be possible for this reason. We see no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal which is accordingly, confirmed. The appeal fails and stands dismissed on merits.