JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Cases, Churu in Case NO. 108/2018 whereby, he closed the evidence of prosecution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a FIR was registered under Section 451, 354, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1) (11) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act at the instance of complainant petitioner. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against accused persons. On 21.02.2017, the learned Additional District Judge, Churu framed charges against the accused persons and matter proceeded for evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is argued that on 16.05.2019, the learned Special Judge summoned witness No.10 Investigating officer by bailable warrant and on 24.05.2019, the learned Special Judge granted last opportunity to produce prosecution witness No.10 while issuing bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.2000/-. However, the witness No.10 who is investigating officer did not appear and vide order dated 24.06.2019, the learned court below closed the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, for just decision of the case, the witness No.10 who is a material witness should be summoned and examined before the Court. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. It is contended that all possible steps were taken by the learned trial Court to procure the attendance of the investigating officer and since all the attempts failed, the Court decided to dispense with the examination of the investigating officer and closed the prosecution case. 4. Notices were issued to respondents No.2 & 3, however, even after service, no one has put in appearance. 5. I have heard rival contention of the parties and also examined the impugned order. 6. It is not in dispute that despite grant of opportunities, the investigating officer witness No.10 did not appear, however, the court below did not mention as to whether the bailable warrants were served upon the witness No.10 or not and whether efforts were made by the prosecution to produce the said witness and straightaway closed the evidence of prosecution. The prosecution has a responsibility in the matter of producing its witnesses. The prosecution has a responsibility in the matter of producing its witnesses. Either the witnesses should be produced by the prosecution itself or in cases where issue of summons or warrants is necessary for enforcing the attendance of witnesses, the application for issue of summons of warrants must be moved in time giving the latest correct addresses of the witnesses and steps must be taken to ensure that the summons are duly served and warrants are duly executed. 7. The examination of investigating officer in a criminal trial is not just a formality but very relevant and it is not just to prove the omissions and contradictions in the statements of witnesses examined by that officer but many important aspect of the prosecution case could be unearthed by examining such a witness. 8. The investigating officer is the principal architect and executor of the entire investigation. He is a crucial witness for the defence to question the honesty and calibre of the entire process of investigation. It will not only be beneficial to the prosecution but also to the defence and moreover it is very much necessary for the Court to arrive at a just decision of the case. 9. In view of above, the present appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 24.06.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu is hereby quashed and set aside and the trial court is directed to summon the witness No.10 i.e Investigating officer and examine him before the Court.