( 1 ) THE present revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against order dated 02. 06. 2004 passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Case No. 1110c/99. ( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the above application are that taking advantage of the temporary absence of the petitioner and her son Naru Gopal hazra, landlord O. P. No. 1 along with his son O. P. No. 2 with the help of local hooligans illegally trespassed into the rented room of the petitioner in the ground floor at Bargachia Super Mini Market, Village Bankul, Dist. Howrah on 27. 08. 99, ransacked the articles and stole away cash, ornaments and valuable articles, worth of about Rs. 80,000/- therefrom. The petitioner and her son informed the matter to the local P. S. , but it only recorded a G. D. vide No. 1228 dated 27. 08. 99. The petitioner handed over a copy of the complaint to SDO who sent the same to local P. S. and the P. S. submitted a report on 29. 11. 99 after investigation. As no case was started by the P. S. , the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 448/379/34 I. P. C. for treating it as F. I. R. under Section 153 (3) Cr. P. C. After examining the complainant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah issued persons under Section 379, I. P. C. the 0. Ps. ( 3 ) ON the date of consideration of charge on 02. 06. 04 learned Advocate for the petitioner could not take steps for his personal difficulty, for which all the accused persons were discharged under Section 245 (1) Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court. ( 5 ) MR. Banerjee learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that since his client was absent on one occasion only, she may be given another opportunity to examine her balance witnesses. Mr. Maity, learned Counsel for O. P. Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5, on the other hand, submitted that apart from the fact that the particulars of articles alleged to have been stolen away have not been borne out in the petition of complaint, as the petitioner could examine only one witness i. e. herself as P. W. 1 on 25. 02. Maity, learned Counsel for O. P. Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5, on the other hand, submitted that apart from the fact that the particulars of articles alleged to have been stolen away have not been borne out in the petition of complaint, as the petitioner could examine only one witness i. e. herself as P. W. 1 on 25. 02. 2002 and during the long 21/2 years no other witness could be examined and that on the date of consideration of charge on 02. 06. 04 when the petitioner was absent without any step the learned Magistrate on perusal of the materials-on-record found the alleged offence under Section 379 I. P. C. was not prima facie established, there was no other alternative but to discharge the accused persons, and so the impugned order should not call for any interference. ( 6 ) IN a complaint case, it is the responsibility of the complainant to produce his witnesses, and the Magistrate is not bound to summon any witness on his own. Sub-section (1) of Section 245 enables a Magistrate to discharge an accused after taking all the evidence produced by the prosecution when the magistrate considers that no prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The term "prima facie case" means a case established by prima facie evidence which in turn means evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish fact in question unless rebutted. A combined reading of sections 157, 167 and 173 indicates that an accused is entitled to speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of Mihir Kumar v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1990 Cr. LJ 26 (Cal) and A R. Antulayv. Avdhesh Kumar, reported in 1992 (1)Crimes 193 (S. C. ). It has also been indicated by sub-section (3) of Section 245, as amended by West Bengal Act, 24 of 1988 which in mandatory terms requires a Magistrate to discharge an accused if the prosecution fails to adduce all the evidence referred to in Section 244 within four years of the appearance of the accused persons, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it will not be in the interest of Justice to do so. ( 7 ) HERE, the case is of 1999. ( 7 ) HERE, the case is of 1999. Out of the five listed witnesses, the petitioner could examine only one witness i. e. herself as P. W. 1 on 25. 02. 2002 and on the date of consideration of charge on 02. 06. 2004 she was found absent without any step. The said P. W. 1 who is not an eyewitness came to learn about theft of her articles by the O. Ps. by breaking open the padlock, from Debasis who was not examined, and as such the above evidence of P. W. 1 is hearsay. An accused is entitled to be discharged when the complainant despite opportunities failed to produce his other witnesses and willfully dragged on the case. To hold the contrary would be to grant a premium to the complainant to prolong the harassment to the accused persons. ( 8 ) SO, there being no infirmity with the impugned order of discharge of the O. Ps. and there being no material to interfere with the order, the present revisional application being devoid of any merit be dismissed.