specifically, in the name of appellant. However, it was left to the total discretion of Ahlmad of the Court. Pankaj was never served as no summons have ever been served upon him. The learned trial Court in a casual manner without application of mind adjourned the case from time to time for prosecution evidence. If any witness such as Mange Ram, ASI, Narender Singh were ever served, no effort was made to secure their presence while adopting coercive methods. Mere counting the opportunity are not sufficient, if a particular witness, despite service fails to appear before the Court concerned, then, it is the duty of the Court concerned to secure the presence of the witness, despite service fails to appear before the court concerned, then, it is the duty of the court concerned to secure the presence of the witness concerned while adopting coercive method such as bailable warrant or warrant of arrest. The hands of the Court concerned are not so tight. It can also attach the movable-immovable property of any person concerned, to secure his or her presence. Moreover, Criminal Procedure Code, no where provides closing of prosecution evidence by the Court concerned, however, if the prosecution failed to adduced evidence, then, court concerned may pronnounce the judgment of acquittal. The non-application of mind by the learned trial Court has caused grave prejudice to the appellant and another injured Pankaj and the way in which learned trial had conducted the proceeding, it tantamounts to travesty of
