Judgment 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner is the son of the informant and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2004 his application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing summons for production of the I.O., who investigated the case for the offences under Section 364, was turned down on the ground that in spite of several steps having been taken the I.O. was not coming forward to examine himself and in that view of the matter the Court below being of the view that in a case under Section 363 of the Penal Code the examination of the I.O. may not necessary turned down the request of the son of the informant. 3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this application has contended that earlier the correct place of posting of the Investigating Officer was not known, whatever steps were taken to secure his attendance could not bear fruit but now the address of the I.O. is available and there may not be any difficulty in securing his attendance, if summons and other processes for his attendance are issued. 4. In view of the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 13.7.2004 should be set aside with a direction to the trial Court to issue summons for appearance of the I.O. at his place of posting and in the event the I.O. fails to respond the summons steps should be taken to secure his attendance by issuing bailable warrant of arrest against him. 5. This application is accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations/ directions.