Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.6.1990 passed by Sri Bal Krishna Jha, the then 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 174/4 of 1987/1988, arising out of Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 419/85, whereby and whereunder both the accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under the provisions of Section 232 Cr.P.C, the State of Bihar has preferred the instant appeal against the order of acquittal and Bimla Devi, the informant of the case, has preferred the revision. 2. Since the appeal and the revision arise out of the same impugned order of acquittal, they were earlier made analogous and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution case as based on the fardbeyan of Bimla Devi, a widow, working in the D.R.M. office of Samastipur was that she was being vexed by one Ram Chandra Yadav for not marrying him since she was always turning down his proposal for marriage. It is alleged that at about 11 P.M. on the night of 27.11.1985 Ram Chandra Yadav and Arvind Yadav alongwith 3-4 unknown others went to the darwaza of the informant and Ram Chandra started chastising her to marry him or else he would kill all her four sons whereupon the informant with all her sons locked themselves in a room. It is said that on 28.11.1985 the informant put her children in the custody of her mother-in-law, Devki Devi, and left her house for the office at around 9 A.M. It is further stated that at around 3 P.M. one Satya Narayan Razak, a co-villager, informed her that at about 2 P.M. Ram Chandra alongwith Arvind Yadav, Rama Rai and Madan Rai went to her darwaza and attempted to shoot dead her son Arun Kumar Razak but his friend in an attempt to save him sustained injuries and had been removed to the Samastipur Railway Hospital where his condition being found to be serious he was shifted to Laheriasarai Hospital. 4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 419 of 1985 was registered under Sections 448, 324, 307 I.P.C. and 25/27 of Arms Act against the four F.I.R. named accused. 4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 419 of 1985 was registered under Sections 448, 324, 307 I.P.C. and 25/27 of Arms Act against the four F.I.R. named accused. After due investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet against all the four accused under Sections 452, 342, 323, 326, 307/34 I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act. 5. It appears that before the Court of Sessions accused Ram Chandra Rai and Arvind Rai were discharged vide order dated 16.12.1988 whereas on 4.1.1989 Madan Rai and Rama Rai were charged for commission of offences only under Sections 452, 342, 323, I.P.C. That apart Rama Rai was also charged under Sections 326 and 307 I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act whereas Madan Rai was further charged under Sections 326/109 read with Sections 34 and 307 read with Section 109 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. At the trial the prosecution was granted sufficient indulgence to produce its witnesses apart from the efforts by the Court itself to secure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses. Nevertheless in a span of time spread over a period of one and a half years the prosecution could produce only 4 formal witnesses, none of whom were named in the charge-sheet and as a consequence thereof they could not support the prosecution case in material particulars. Eventually the learned Additional Sessions Judge closed the prosecution evidence and recorded the impugned order acquitting the accused under the provisions of Section 232 Cr.P.C. 7. The principal ground agitated by the State Govt. in this appeal is that no summons were factually issued to the witnesses by the office although orders had been passed in that regard. And the witnesses who had appeared were by way of chance without any service of any summons or warrant of arrest on them, it has also been submitted that on 26.9.1989 two witnesses presented themselves in Court at late hours but none of them were examined and the case was adjourned to 14.11.1989, but the record was put up only on 15.11.1989 on which day the office clerk was directed to comply with the previous orders. 8. 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 204 Cr.P.C. contemplates the filing of a list of prosecution witnesses by the prosecution and it is only thereafter that under subsection (1) of Section 204 Cr.P.C. summons/warrant can be issued to the witnesses. It appears that no such list of prosecution witnesses was filed by the prosecutor. In the opinion of the Apex Court the prosecutor is bound to call all the witnesses who proved their connection with the transaction in question and who also must be able to give important information and if such witness are not produced without sufficient reasons being shown the Court may properly draw an inference adverse to the prosecutionsee Sardul Singh ( AIR 1957 SC 747 ), Habeeb Mohammad ( AIR 1954 SC 1 ). 9. Then again it is the prosecutor who has the discretion as to what witnesses should be called for the prosecution and in those circumstances the Court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it can be shown that the prosecutor had been influenced by some oblique motive. The Court merely acts as step-in-aid to the prosecution by summoning the witnesses whom the prosecution desire to examine. 10. As would appear in the instant case the prcsecution failed to furnish any list of witnesses whom it desired to examine on behalf of the prosecution. When witnesses who are independent and are named in the first information report are not called by the prosecution, the Court is justified in assuming that their evidence would not have supported the prosecution. 11. It would appear from the impugned order that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had made several attempts to secure the attendance of the witnesses but they just did not turn up. So far as the prosecutors grievance of two witnesses being present in Court in late hours and their non-examination by the Court on that day, it must be made clear that although the court adjourned the case to 14.11.1981, it was not required to give any direction to the witnesses present to be present in Court on that day. As a matter of fact to the contrary it was for the prosecution to give them instruction to be present in Court on that date and that they ought to have executed PR bonds. As a matter of fact to the contrary it was for the prosecution to give them instruction to be present in Court on that date and that they ought to have executed PR bonds. That not having been done the prosecutor cannot turn around today and say that the Court failed in its duty by not issuing processes/summons to the witnesses. The two witnesses who had appeared in Court at late hours on that date would be well aware of the fact that they would be required to be present in Court for their deposition on the next day fixed. 12. In my mind the learned Additional Sessions Judge in absence of the prosecutor failing to procure its witnesses has rightly closed the prosecution evidence and proceeded with the case. The action of the Court cannot be faulted. 13. Accordingly I find no merit in this appeal which being frivolous and misconceived is dismissed. 14. So far as the revision preferred by the informant is concerned, the informant too would be liable to procure/secure the attendance of its witnesses and that not having been done the entire exercise of securing/procuring witnesses cannot be thrown on the Court. 15. Seeing the fate of the appeal preferred by the Government the learned counsel for the revisionist-informant has not sought to press the revision. Accordingly, the revision is also dismissed. 16. In the result the revision as also the Government Appeal are dismissed. 17. Accordingly the Respondents Madan Rai and Rama Rai should be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case.