JUDGMENT :- Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Considering nature of the controversy involved and the documents submitted, calling of the record and proceedings is dispensed with. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. By this application in revision, the original accused in Criminal Case No. 1241 of 2009 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, has assailed the order passed by the Court of Session in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2010 quashing and setting aside the order acquitting the applicant passed by the trial Court and remanding matter to the trial Court with a direction to secure attendance of PW3 Yadav for recording his cross-examination and allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence of other witnesses if any and then thereafter deciding the said case in accordance with the law. 5. The revision-applicant was tried for commission of offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code as a result of investigation of first information report lodged by the non-applicant no.1 -PW2 Arvind kumar. He was charge sheeted and tried accordingly mainly on the allegation of on the day in question having been to the office of the non-applicant no.1 and having demanded Rs.5000/- by giving threats that otherwise he will publish defamatory articles against the non-applicant no.1 in a newspaper run by him. The proceedings before the trial Court were concluded after prosecution adduced the evidence of in all three witnesses and out of it the evidence of PW3 was not useful for any meaningful purpose as after recording his examination-in-chief, as the applicant has sought the time and said witness was bond over to appear on particular day but he failed to turn up accordingly. The trial Court after recording the evidence and arguments in the case, acquitted the applicant from the charge of commission of offence under Section 385 of the I.P.C. 6. The non-applicant no. I assailed said order of acquittal by preferring an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2010 to the Court of Session. After hearing both the parties, the said appeal was disposed of by quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and matter was remanded to trial Court with a direction as narrated earlier. 7. Assailing the order passed by the Court of Session, Mr. After hearing both the parties, the said appeal was disposed of by quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and matter was remanded to trial Court with a direction as narrated earlier. 7. Assailing the order passed by the Court of Session, Mr. Thakkar, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Sessions Court manifestly erred in unnecessarily interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It was urged that it is settled legal position that the judgment and order of acquittal recorded in favour of any accused is not to be lightly disturbed by the appellate Court until same is found to be perverse. Mr. Thakkar by taking through the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court submitted that the trial Court therein observed that the evidence of non-applicant no.1/PW2 was of highly doubtful character and so also that of his superior officer i.e. PW1. It was urged that the trial Court also duly took into consideration inordinate delay of 5 days occurred in lodging the report and same adversely affecting upon the claim staked by PW2 of himself being threatened by the applicant as claimed. It was submitted that the trial Court properly appreciated the evidence surfaced on the record and as such no interference was warranted with it in the appeal against the order of acquittal. 8. Mr. Thakkar thereafter submitted that the Court of Session also unnecessarily interfered with the order passed by the trial Court on the count of the trial Court having stopped the proceedings and had not taken into consideration that the evidence of PW3 was required to be closed on the count of himself having failed to appear on the further date for which he was bond over for the purposes of cross-examination by the applicant. It was urged that in light of evidence which had surfaced at the trial and particularly that of the main victim being of a doubtful character, the said evidence even in event of having been adduced before the trial Court, would not had any significant effect on the order which has emerged out of the main evidence of PW2 surfaced at the trial. Mr. Thakkar contended that the Sessions Court ignored the vital aspect that the said bound over witness to attend for cross-examination failed to appear before the Court. Mr. Thakkar contended that the Sessions Court ignored the vital aspect that the said bound over witness to attend for cross-examination failed to appear before the Court. It was thus urged that the Court of Session mechanically and lightly interfered with the order of acquittal passed. Mr. Thakkar, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Court of Session setting aside the order of acquittal and remanding the matter back to the trial Court with the directions. 9. Mr. N.D. Thombre, learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 1 countered the aforesaid submissions by submitting that since it is cardinal rule of a criminal trial that both the sides must receive fair and equal adequate opportunity and such an opportunity being not received by the prosecution, no fault can be found with the interference with such an order of acquittal hurriedly passed by the trial Court. It is the crux of the submission of the learned counsel that the act of PW3 appearing at the trial and giving an evidence denotes that the prosecution had made an attempt to adduce his evidence in support of its case. Mr. Thombre submitted that the evidence of PW3 could not be completed on relevant day in view of the applicant having sought time. He submitted that though it is true that thereafter PW3 failed to appear before the Court in spite of himself being bond over, the trial Court committed blunder in closing his evidence. It is submitted that in such an eventuality, it was necessary for the trial Court to issue the summons and/or necessary process compel the appearance of said witness for completing the cross-examination. It was submitted that such an act or attitude on the part of the trial Court has resulted the prosecution getting deprived an important evidence regarding the matters in issue before the trial Court. It is submitted such an inference is apparent as the examination-in-chief of PW3 recorded before the trial Court reveals that he had witnessed the incident of an extortion for which the report has been lodged. 10. Mr. Thombre thereafter by taking the Court through the reasoning given by the trial Court about PW2 having attended his office before the hours of duty on the relevant day and/or the inferences thereon drawn by the trial Court, submitted that said inferences are drawn without there being any material for supporting it. 10. Mr. Thombre thereafter by taking the Court through the reasoning given by the trial Court about PW2 having attended his office before the hours of duty on the relevant day and/or the inferences thereon drawn by the trial Court, submitted that said inferences are drawn without there being any material for supporting it. It was urged that the observations made by the trial Court regarding the evidence of PW1 and PW2 being doubtful are not emerging out of any material placed before the Court, but are in the nature of surmises and as such the order of acquittal recorded thereon was also not sustainable in law and as such no error was committed by the Court of Session in quashing and setting aside the said order. 11. Mr. Thombre submitted that though the judgment passed by the trial Court reveals that the learned APP was heard, the Roznama shows that, in fact, he was absent on the relevant day. Mr. Thombre submitted that though he is not disputing the legal proposition canvassed regarding scope of an interference in an appeal against the order of acquittal, still the matters pointed out by him reveals that the non-applicant no.1 has made out a case for an interference in view of the order of acquittal being not legally sustainable and as such no error was committed by the Court of Session. Mr. Thombre further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the applicant as he would be getting due opportunity to defend himself in a trial. He submitted that no interference is warranted in present revision in view of no case of legal error, impropriety or incorrectness being pointed out and on the contrary for such a reason the Sessions Court being required to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal recorded, this application in revision be dismissed in limine. 12. He submitted that no interference is warranted in present revision in view of no case of legal error, impropriety or incorrectness being pointed out and on the contrary for such a reason the Sessions Court being required to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal recorded, this application in revision be dismissed in limine. 12. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides and after perusal of the record as made available to the Court, but keeping in mind that the controversy involved in the proceedings being the order of remand with a direction to complete further proceeding at the trial by completing incomplete evidence of PW3 and by adducing the further evidence, if any, to be adduced by the prosecution and hearing both the sides thereon, it appears proper not to make a detail dilation about the evidence which is already adduced at the said trial, as in the event of order of remand is held to be proper, the trial court would be requiring to assess it. It appears accordingly as making any dilation about the same in such event would be adversely affecting either of a party at the trial. 13. Thus considering the main ground upon which the Session Court interfered with the order of acquittal and set aside the same and remanded the matter back, there appears substance in the submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1. The same is apparent as it is the prosecution case that PW2 was extorted by the revision-applicant and at that time PW3 had been in the relevant office for the purposes of collecting his wages. The circumstances in which the evidence of PW3 was not completed at the trial indicates that the reasoning given by the trial Court that his evidence thereon being not probable, clearly appears to be premature and so also perverse. The same is the case regarding such an observation made qua the evidence of PW1 and PW2. As a matter of fact, it appears that the trial Court arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of the conduct of PW3 in attending said office well before office hours. Without the evidence of PW3 being completely adduced at the trial, the trial Court arrived at a finding of such a thing being improbable and tried to whittle out with the evidence of PW2 on said count. Without the evidence of PW3 being completely adduced at the trial, the trial Court arrived at a finding of such a thing being improbable and tried to whittle out with the evidence of PW2 on said count. Needless to add that the entire reasoning given by the trial Court does not reveal that evidence of PW2 was otherwise found to be shaken or at least there is no discussion about the said aspect. 14. The reference to the decision in a case of Vadivelu Thever vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 370] reveals that in the said decision the Apex Court has observed of there being three type of witnesses i.e. witness wholly reliable, partly reliable and wholly unreliable. The discussion in said decision also reveals that there exists no need of corroborative evidence, for the evidence of witness who is found to be wholly reliable and no corroborative evidence could give sanctity to the evidence of witness who is found wholly unreliable. The decision also reveals that in the event of the witness is found to be partly reliable, then the corroborative evidence may be useful in appreciating the evidence of such a witness and arriving at a finding on the basis of such evidence. In the instant case bearing in mind that the evidence of PW2 would be again before the trial Court, it can be safely said that the said evidence does not make out a case of the said witness is wholly unreliable witness. Having regard to the same, the corroborative evidence of PW3 should have been taken into consideration while assessing his evidence. The record reveals that the trial Court had hurriedly proceeded with the matter without prosecution completing the evidence of PW3 at the trial. It is indeed true said witness failed to appear before the trial Court on the day fixed for his cross-examination. His evidence could not be completed in view of the applicant having taken time on the relevant occasion. However, the record does not reveal that the trial Court had taken any pains or a proper step for securing the presence of the said witness, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1. His evidence could not be completed in view of the applicant having taken time on the relevant occasion. However, the record does not reveal that the trial Court had taken any pains or a proper step for securing the presence of the said witness, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1. It needs no saying that once the Criminal Court takes a cognizance of an offence, then it is the duty of the Criminal Court to deal with the offender connected with the commission of relevant crime in accordance with the law. The procedure meant for such a trial reveals that it is the duty of the Court to make every effort to have best possible evidence regarding the matters before it in a issue for arriving at correct decision at the trial. No such effort being taken by the trial Court, it is difficult to find any fault with the interference made by Court of Sessions with such an order passed by the trial Court in hurriedly manner. 15. In the premises aforesaid, it is difficult to find any fault with the order of quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and remanding the matter on part of Court of Sessions. Needless to say that said direction considered as a whole, reveals that proper direction has been given by the Court of Session for completing the trial in accordance with the law. Thus there are no merits in application in revision preferred, the same stands dismissed. Application dismissed.