Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua by which he has awarded cost of Rupees 50/- only upon the petitioner for non-producing the prosecution witnesses for their examination and cross-examination in Complaint Case No.387 of 2000 arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No. 310 of 1999 dated 25.11.1999 and also for quashing the order dated 3.6.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C. 5), Bhabua in Cr.Revision No. 35 of 2005 by which he has dismissed the Criminal Revision application filed by the petitioner. 2. It has been submitted that the prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined before the charge and thereupon they were discharged by the Court but thereafter the defence wished to cross-examine some of the prosecution witness as then the duty was cast upon the Court concerned to recall, those witnesses named by the defence. It is not the duty of the prosecution as according to Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code), sub-sections 4 and 5. 3. It has been also submitted that the trial Court ought not to have insisted upon the prosecution to procure the attendance of the witnesses after the charges were already framed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards a decision reported in AIR 1958 Pat 104 (DB) (Kunj Behari Yadav V/s. Basdeo Yadav and others) in which the Honble Division Bench of this Court has said that Section 256 (New Section 246, Cr PC) of the Code casts the duty of recalling the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination after charge upon the Magistrate. It is not the duty of the complainant to procure the attendance of his witnesses. It appears that the occurrence is of 1999 and case is pending for last seven years. The alleged offence is under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. From the order of learned C.J.M., it appears that actually the complainant was taking interest in examination of witnesses and later on only he wanted to linger the case by not getting the witnesses examined. The alleged offence is under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. From the order of learned C.J.M., it appears that actually the complainant was taking interest in examination of witnesses and later on only he wanted to linger the case by not getting the witnesses examined. The Revisional Court has also observed in its order that it was the petitioner who was producing the witnesses and all of a sudden in March, 2005 he pointed out that it was the duty of the Court to secure the attendance of witnesses. No doubt it is the duty of the Court to secure the attendance of witnesses by the informant/complainant should also co-operate with the Court for getting the witnesses present in the Court. 6. But in view of the legal position, the order of the Court below imposing fine of Rs. 50/- is certainly against the provision of the Code, as such this order is not sustainable in eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.3.2005 and 3.6.2005 are hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.