1.This appeal filed by the State under Section 417, Criminal P. C. is directed against the judgment of the First class Magistrate, Aurad in C. C. No. 47/2 of 1967 on his file. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent who was charged and tried for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the I. P. Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9-2-1967 at about 5 p.m. the respondent was driving a baa bearing No. MYI 3135 from Kusnoor to Bidar in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a cart driven by the deceased Maharudrappa and as a result of this collision Maharudrappa died on the spot and therefore, the respondent was liable to answer a charge for an offence under Section 804-A of the I. P. Code. Though the incident took place on 9-2-1967, charge-sheet against the respondent was placed on 25-5-1966. No witnesses were in attendance and therefore at the instance of the prosecutor the case was adjourned to 25-7-1967. On that day, that is, 25-7-1967, one witness was present in Court and be was examined. He did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecutor prayed for issue of warrants to four other witnesses pleading his inability to bring them to the Court. The Court issued bailable warrants and posted the case to 18-8-1967. On 18-8-1967, no witness for the prosecution was present. The bailable warrants that were issued at the instance of the prose, out or were handed over to the police for service. The Police neither served them on the witnesses nor returned the warrants as unserved. The learned Magistrate refused to grant an adjournment to the Prosecutor and closed the case and on the evidence adduced entered acquittal in favour of respondent. It is the correctness and legality of this judgment that is challenged in this appeal.
3. It is clear from the narration of facts above that the prosecution was not at all diligent. Once the Prosecutor prayed for warrants and secured them it was the duty of the prosecution to serve the warrants on the several witnesses and bring and examine them in court. The explanation offered by the prosecution that because the Police were otherwise busy, they could not serve the warrants against the several prosecution witnesses, is far from satisfactory. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in refusing to grant an adjournment to the prosecution and proceeding to pronounce the judgment on the material placed on record. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.