ORDER : Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. This petition has been filed for a limited direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa to conclude trial proceedings expeditiously within stipulated time in connection with Criminal Case No.251/2022 for the offence under Sections 420, 506 & 34 of the IPC registered against the petitioner herein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR bearing Crime No.151/2022 has been registered against the petitioner on 12.06.2022 at Police Station Nawagarh, Janjgir-Champa for the offence under Sections 420, 506 & 34 of the IPC. He has filed order-sheets of proceedings of the trial Court to submit that on 14.10.2022 charge-sheet has been filed but not a single witness has been examined so far. Even on several dates the Additional District Prosecution Officer (for short the “ADPO”) has not made appearance. Further, on 07.11.2022 also, when the case was fixed for framing of charges, the ADPO did not remain present before the trial Court. Thereafter, on 24.03.2023, in absence of the ADPO, the trial Court heard the arguments and framed the charges and posted the case for evidence on 02.05.2023. On the said date, though ADPO was present but no witness was turned up. Even on the next date of hearing, no summons were issued. Thereafter, the case was listed on 25.07.2023, 11.10.2023 and on 30.10.2023. On 30.10.2023, one of the witnesses namely, Nitish Kumar was present however the case was adjourned on the ground that court hour was over and case was fixed for 05.01.2024. On the said date, two witnesses namely Pradeep Kumar Katakwar and Nitish Kumar Kashap were present but at the request of defence counsel, their cross-examination was not done and case was fixed for 09.02.2024. On 09.02.2024 statement of witenss Nitish Kashyap could not be completed and statement of other witness Pradeep Kumar Kashyap was not conducted due to paucity of time. Learned counsel draws attention towards order dated 07.03.2020 wherein in absence of the ADPO, the trial Court has not examined the witness and mentioned the reason that there is direction of the District and Sesesions Judge, Janjgir Champa that the statement of the witness in the offence of Section 420 IPC has to be recorded in present of Prosecution Officer only. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has a right of speedy trial and prays for suitable direction to the concerned trial Court. 3. Looking to the manner in which trial is going on before the trial Court, this Court has requested Shri T. K. Jha, Advocate, to assist in the matter as an Amicus. Learned Amicus submits that it is the duty of the Court to firstly appreciate the physical and mental inconvenience caused to the witnesses present before the Court on the fixed date. Further, the trial Court should consider that witnesses are eyes and ears of the trial case and while visiting the court again and again their time is wasted. It should also consider the money spent for journey of the witnesses and the precious time of the Court. He submits that the trial getting protracted many a time to the greatest disadvantage of the prosecution. Learned Amicus further submits that even the rules have been framed by the High Court in this regard. Rule 709 of the CG Rules and Orders (Criminal) (for short “Rules and Orders”) says that a State case should be finished within thirty days and there are guidelines to keep witness attendance either repeatedly or for several days. For the sake of brevity the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:- 709. A State case should be finished within thirty days, and a complaint case within forty-five. It should be noted how long the magistrate takes to bring the accused to trial, and bring up the witnesses against him, how long he takes to hear the evidence, and how long he takes to deliver judgment once the evidence is closed. It is a bad fault to bring an accused to court over and over and again, and keep witnesses in attendance either repeatedly or for several days at a time so that they cannot follow their living. 4. Learned Amicus also draws attention towards Rule 707 of the Rules and Orders which says that it is duty of the trial Court to avoid adjournments. Rule 707 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- 707. 4. Learned Amicus also draws attention towards Rule 707 of the Rules and Orders which says that it is duty of the trial Court to avoid adjournments. Rule 707 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- 707. As to trial : The points to look for are whether he avoid adjournments and grants them only when they are really necessary; whether he examines (as he ought) all witnesses present from day to day until they are finished, or whether (as he ought not) he postpones their examination on the pretext of waiting for an absentee so that he can examine him an them together; and whether he takes prompt action to have absentees brought up. 5. Learned Amicus next submits that while dealing with trials in criminal case, the position of Judicial Magistrate is not that of judges of civil courts, who decide case on the evidence placed before them and leave it to the parties concerned to see that the evidence they produce is complete. Even the fact that the prosecution is conducted by a public prosecutor does not absolve the presiding officer from his duty. Learned Amicus has draws attention towards Rule 118 of the Rules and Orders which deals with the aforesaid issue and same is reproduced hereunder:- Rule 118. In dealing with trials and enquiries presiding officers should remember that their position is not that of judges of civil courts who decide cases on the evidence put before them and leave it to the parties concerned to see that the evidence they produce is complete. Their primary duty is the ascertainment of the facts and the punishment of the guilty. For this purpose they have, under the Evidence Act and the Code, ample power. The fact that the prosecution is conducted by a public prosecutor or by a prosecuting inspector of police does not absolve the presiding officer from this duty. 6. He further draws attention towards Rule 191 of the Rules and Orders which states that recording of evidence should, as far as possible, proceed de die en diem. The said rule reads thus:- Rule 191. The recording of evidence should as far as possible proceed de die en diem. Unnecessary adjournments and detention of witness not only inflict hard-ship but result in the waste public money in the payment of daily allowance. This is a matter to which inspecting officers should devote special attention. 7. The said rule reads thus:- Rule 191. The recording of evidence should as far as possible proceed de die en diem. Unnecessary adjournments and detention of witness not only inflict hard-ship but result in the waste public money in the payment of daily allowance. This is a matter to which inspecting officers should devote special attention. 7. It is next submitted that by the Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.11.2010 an amendment has been incorporated under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Fourth proviso has been added under sub section (2) of the said Section. The said provision reads thus:- “Section 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. (1) *** *** *** (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: [Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.] [Provided also that— (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.]” 8. Learned Amicus would submit that in the State of Chhattisgarh, in absence of ADPO also, the Magistrate is regularly recording the statement of the witnesses and it is common practice. He submits that in the Cr.P.C., 1973 or in Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) there is no provision that statement can only be recorded in presence of public prosecutor in the Court of the Magistrate. Further, fourth proviso of Section 309 (2) Cr.P.C. clearly mandates that even in absence of one of the parties or their pleader the Magistrate can record the statement of the witness and pass suitable order as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be. He lastly draws attention towards Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023, which provides power to postpone or adjourn trial proceedings unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for the reasons to be recorded. 9. Shri Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate appearing for State agrees with the aforesaid procedures. When a query has been put as to why the ADPO or Prosecution Officer does not visit regularly before the concerned trial Court, learned State counsel submits that he would bring such fact to the notice of the Director Prosecution and shall also make his best efforts to avoid such type of situation in future. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sate of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors [ (2001) 4 SCC 667 ] in Para 2 has held as under: “2. Witnesses tremble on getting summons from courts, in India, not because they fear examination or cross-examination in courts but because of the fear that they might not be examined at all for several days and on all such days they would be nailed to the precincts of the courts awaiting their chance of being examined. The witnesses, perforce, keep aside their avocation and go to the courts and wait and wait for hours to be told at the end of the day to come again and wait and wait like that. This is the infelicitous scenario in many of the courts in India so far as witnesses are concerned. It is high time that trial courts should regard witnesses as guests invited (through summons) for helping such courts with their testimony for reaching judicial findings. This is the infelicitous scenario in many of the courts in India so far as witnesses are concerned. It is high time that trial courts should regard witnesses as guests invited (through summons) for helping such courts with their testimony for reaching judicial findings. But the malady is that the predicament of the witnesses is worse than the litigants themselves. This case demonstrates the agony and ordeal suffered by witnesses who attended a Sessions court on several days and yet they were not examined in full. The party who succeeded in dodging examination of such witnesses finally enjoyed the benefit when the Sessions Court acquitted them for want of evidence. The only casualty in the aforesaid process is criminal justice.” 11. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel and perusing the order-sheets of the trial Court and further keeping in view of the above observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is very alarming and serious situation where unjust proceeding is going on in the criminal court. After perusing the relevant provisions and rules, this Court does not find any different mechanism for trial proceedings in the offence of Section 420 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in the State of Chhattisgarh. In such circumstances, considering the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 that as per direction of the District and Sessions Judge, statement of the witness in case of Section 420 IPC has to be recorded in presence of prosecution officer only, this Court prima facie is of the view that the said direction is contrary and dehors the law. However, since the aforesaid observation has been made in the solemn proceeding by the trial Magistrate, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Registrar General to examine such aspects and issue suitable direction to all the Judicial Officers of the State of Chhattisgarh, after due approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, in order to avoid unnecessary adjournment particularly in similar type of situations. 12. 12. Apart from the aforesaid, after hearing the submission of learned State counsel, as of now, this Court is not seeking any explanation from concerned ADPO as to why he did not appear regularly in trial proceedings, however, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the State Director Prosecution to conduct appropriate enquiry and after reaching to its logical conclusion, the report shall be submitted before the Registrar General within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Director (Prosecution) shall also ensure that similar type of situation shall not prevail in future before any of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and shall also ensure proper arrangement for presence of the Prosecution Officer. However, in extra-ordinary situation where no arrangement is possible, the concerned Prosecution Officer shall make a prayer in writing and thereafter the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law in expeditious manner keeping in view the relevant provisions and guidelines as mentioned in the Rules and Orders. Ordered accordingly. 13. The trial Court is also expected to proceed in pending criminal case in expeditious manner in accordance with law. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General for necessary information and compliance. 15. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the concerned trial Court through District Judge for information and necessary compliance. 16. Learned State counsel shall provide necessary information to the State Director Prosecution. 17. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. 18. This Court appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by Shri T. K. Jha Advocate.