Judgment :- 1. The respondents herein are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.418 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam. The charges were framed against the accused for the offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Sections 468, 471, 485, 486 and 487 I.P.C., for illegal possession of spurious liquors. After framing the charges, the case was pending for more than a year as the witnesses were not produced by the prosecution. Hence, the learned Magistrate had passed an order on 24.01.2007 acquitting the accused/respondents herein under Section 248 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said acquittal, the State has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. 2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that after the charges being framed, the learned Magistrate, without recording the evidence of the witnesses, erroneously acquitted all the accused under Section 248 Cr.P.C. Though summons were issued on 23.12.2005 to produce the witnesses on the subsequent dates, as List Witness No.1, who is police officer, was transferred from Erode to Villupuram District and also subsequently due to some local body election, the witnesses, who are the police officials, could not be produced. Though List Witness Nos.3 to 5 were produced before the trial Court on 28.07.2006, as List Witness No.1 was not present, L.Ws.3 to 5 were not examined. On 18.08.2006, though L.W.2 was produced before the Court, due to Advocates Boycott, the trial Court had not chosen to proceed with the trial. The learned Magistrate had issued a warrant against L.W.1 for his non-appearance on 17.11.2006 and L.W.1 had filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, and obtained stay against the warrant issued by the learned Magistrate. Further, on 16.12.2006, the prosecution had produced only List Witness Nos.7 and 9, since other witnesses were held up in the President Bandobust duty, but those witnesses were not examined by the trial Court. Ultimately, the trial Court had acquitted the accused on 24.01.2007 without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. A memo signed by the Inspector of Police, P.E.W. Gobichettipalayam, Erode, showing the particulars with hearing dates was filed. 3. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that several details, which were mentioned in the memo filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, do not find place in the docket entry of the Court records. A memo signed by the Inspector of Police, P.E.W. Gobichettipalayam, Erode, showing the particulars with hearing dates was filed. 3. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that several details, which were mentioned in the memo filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, do not find place in the docket entry of the Court records. As per the entries made, the prosecution had not produced the witnesses before the trial Court. In spite of the warrant being issued against List Witness No.1 by the trial Court on 17.11.2006 and the subsequent hearings, on 08.12.2006, 16.12.2006, 03.01.2007 and 24.01.2007, witnesses were not produced by the prosecution. Only in the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused under Section 248 Cr.P.C. and such acquittal is also permissible as per the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1980 LW (Crl.) 187 [State V. Veerappan and others]. 4. The attention of this Court is drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to paragraph No.22 of the said decision which reads as follows:- "22. After carefully considering all the aforesaid decisions and the views expressed therein, we are of the view that if the prosecution had made an application for the issue of summons to its witnesses either under S.242(2) or 254(2) of the Crl.P.C., it is the duty of the Court to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the powers given to it under the Crl.P.C., as already indicated by us and if still the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account of pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the Court had given it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then the Court, being left with no other alternative, would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case, under S.248, Crl.P.C., in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under S.255(1), Crl.P.C., in summons cases, and we answer the two questions referred to us in the above terms." 5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 6. Of course, as per the Full Bench decision of this Court cited above, after the charges being framed, though there is no specific provision for acquitting the accused if witnesses are not produced by the prosecution under Section 248 Cr.P.C., for want of evidence accused may be acquitted. Prior to passing such an order of acquittal, what is required is that the trial Court should have taken all effective steps to procure the witnesses and important duty is laid on the Court to see that all the powers available to the Court for examination of the witnesses are exercised for just decision of the case. An acquittal of the accused merely on the ground that the prosecution had not produced the witnesses would not be proper if the Court had not discharged its duty by enforcing the attendance of the witnesses. 7. In this case, though the trial was pending for a period of one year, according to the prosecution, List Witness Nos.3 to 5 were produced on 28.07.2006; List Witness No.2 was produced on 18.08.2006 and List Witness Nos.7 and 9 were produced before the trial Court on 16.12.2006. It appears that as List Witness No.1, who is the main witness, was not produced before the Court, the trial Court has not chosen to examine the other witnesses. Of course, the docket entry do not reveal about producing other witnesses before the trial Court. The order passed by the learned Magistrate speaks only about the lethargic attitude of the prosecution and says that though sufficient time was given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses, the witnesses were not produced. The order does not reveal about any coercive steps taken by the Court to procure the witnesses. Therefore, it is to be observed that the trial Court also has not discharged its duty for procuring the witnesses. 8. Though the order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused under Section 248 Cr.P.C. is improper, now more than 7 ½ years had elapsed from the date of the alleged occurrence and more than five years had elapsed from the date of judgment acquitting the accused, this Court does not want to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 9. 9. It is also observed in paragraph No.23 of the judgment cited above as follows:- "23.) Coming now to these appeals, we might note here that the offences with which the respondents-accused have been charged are offences under S.4(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and those prosecutions were launched nearly four years ago. Furthermore, the prosecution had not, in spite of notices, attempted to produce the witnesses and in fact were quite non-co-operative in their attitude. In view of these circumstances, while pointing out that the acquittal of the respondents-accused in the circumstances of these cases is not proper, inasmuch as the Court had not discharged its duty as indicated by us as above, we do not want to interfere with that acquittal at this length of time and hence we dismiss these appeals." 10. In view of the above reasons, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.