JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This is an appeal by the State against the order dated 30th September, 1986 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Jagatsinghpur acquitting the accused-respondent from charge under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) in G.R. Case No.462 of 1975 (Trial No.36 of 1986). 2. Allegation of the prosecution in brief is that the respondent while working as Secretary, Ichhapur Service Co-operative Society from 01.07.1974 to 30.07.1975 committed criminal misappropriation in respect of fertilizer stock worth Rs.72,268.85 paise and also adulterated 84 bags of fertilizers by mixing foreign materials with the fertilizers. Basing on the allegations and materials learned trial Court framed charge against the respondent u/s 408 of the I.P.C. 3. The plea of the respondent-accused is one of complete denial and false implication. 4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Learned J.M.F.C., Jagatsinghpur found that the evidence produced by the prosecution were highly insufficient to establish charge of Sec.408, IPC and accordingly acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred the present appeal. 5. Though the matter has been listed today, no one appears on behalf of the Respondent. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that this is a fit case for remand as the Court before examination of some important witnesses including the informant closed the prosecution case. According to him, the trial Court should have taken necessary steps for production of informant and rest witnesses and should not have arbitrarily closed the prose¬cution case. 6. On perusal of the case record in G.R. Case No.462 of 1975 of the Court of learned JMFC, Jagatsinghpur, it is seen that none of the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution breathed a word in support of the prosecution allegation. The order sheets dated 17.9.1986 and 24.9.1986 passed by the learned JMFC show that the JMFC not only made efforts for production of the wit¬nesses, but also directed the prosecution to get the remaining witnesses indicating that in spite of summons and wireless mes¬sage, those witnesses were not available. But in response to such direction, the prosecution did not produce the remaining witness¬es. But in response to such direction, the prosecution did not produce the remaining witness¬es. In a criminal case which was already 11 years old and in which the concerned Magistrate had taken all possible steps for production of the witnesses and the prosecution had also failed to produce those witnesses in spite of direction of the Court, the order for closure of the prosecution evidence cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. 7. It is worthwhile to note that the alleged incident relates to the year 1975 and in the charge sheet filed in the same year the respondent-accused has been described as a person 58 years of age. Now in such a case, which is 30 years old in¬volving an accused, who is now nearly 90 years old, an order of remand of the case will not be proper and reasonable. Moreover, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has breathed a single word against the accused-respondent and so improvement in the prosecution case is a distant possibility even if a remand is made. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order acquitting the respondent is confirmed and the appeal of the State is dis¬missed. Appeal dismissed.