Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-This petition, under Section 482, CrPC, has been filed with the averments that the petitioners are witnesses in the Criminal Complainant No. 220/2005 State vs. Suwa Lal & Ors., under Sections 107, 116(3), CrPC and that they have been summoned by warrant of arrest and that despite of their appearance, statements were not recorded and expenses of travelling and diet were also not paid. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are being harassed by the SDM, Kekri without any reason. It is also contended that petitioners, who have been summoned as witnesses, are not accused and, therefore, not only they should have been treated in a dignified manner, also they should have been paid travelling and diet expenses and their statements ought to have been recorded without adjourning the case. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the complaint has been registered on the report of the SHO and petitioners were summoned as witnesses, but deliberately sometimes they did not appear, therefore, for ensuring their presence, the SDM, Kekri issued summons and warrants which cannot be said to be misuse of the process of Court. It is also submitted that on more than one occasion, evidence could not be recorded on account of request on behalf of the Counsel for the witnesses or sometimes on account of strike of the Advocates. It is also submitted that the witnesses never demanded travelling and diet expenses. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. 5. On perusal of the order-sheets, it appears that petitioners, who are witnesses in this matter, were summoned by bailable warrant and after service they were summoned by warrant of arrest and on 23.09.2005 when the witnesses themselves appeared, learned SDM, Kekri released them on furnishing their bail bonds to appear before the Court for evidence on 28.09.2005. Thereafter the witnesses appeared before the trial Court on 28.09.2005 and on 29.09.2005 but their evidence could not be recorded. Thereafter also on 010.2005 and on 110.2005 witnesses appeared but on 110.2005 only one witness Prem Shanker -PW.1, was examined. 6. In my considered opinion, the Court should make every endeavour to record evidence of the witnesses without any delay. Thereafter the witnesses appeared before the trial Court on 28.09.2005 and on 29.09.2005 but their evidence could not be recorded. Thereafter also on 010.2005 and on 110.2005 witnesses appeared but on 110.2005 only one witness Prem Shanker -PW.1, was examined. 6. In my considered opinion, the Court should make every endeavour to record evidence of the witnesses without any delay. The witnesses come from far of places, therefore, their travelling and diet expenses should be paid and they should not be left for harassment at the hands of subordinate staff or anybody, who is instrumental in the justice dispensation system. In the interest of justice, the SDM, Kekri is, therefore, directed to record the evidence of the petitioners on their appearance on the next date of hearing without any fail. Payment of necessary expenses should also be allowed, in accordance with law. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.