Production of prosecution witnesses, not their examination, governs discharge where court-caused delay prevents timely evidence recording.

Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to require the prosecution to produce the evidence under Section 244 within the stipulated period, and the right to discharge arises only on failure of such production. Where the complainant repeatedly produced witnesses on the fixed dates but their examination was delayed because the Presiding Officer was unavailable, transferred, or a successor had not joined, the delay was treated as attributable to the Court and not to any lack of diligence by the complainant. The expression "produce" was distinguished from actual examination, so the accused could not claim discharge merely because the witnesses were not examined within four years.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied so as to entitle the accused to discharge where the prosecution had produced witnesses on the dates fixed within four years, but their examination was delayed because of adjournments attributable mainly to the Court.

Analysis: The provision requires the prosecution to produce the evidence referred to in Section 244 within four years from the date of appearance of the accused. On the facts found, the complainant repeatedly produced witnesses on the dates fixed for evidence, but the case could not be taken up because the Presiding Officer was otherwise engaged, transferred, or the successor had not joined. The delay was therefore not caused by any want of diligence on the part of the complainant. The expression 'produce' in Section 245(3) was treated as distinct from actual examination of witnesses, and the accused could not claim discharge merely because the witnesses were not examined within the period when the impediment lay with the Court.

Conclusion: Section 245(3) was held inapplicable on these facts, and the prayer for discharge was rightly refused.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to discharge under Section 245(3) arises only when the prosecution fails to produce evidence within the stipulated period; where witnesses are duly produced and delay in examination is occasioned by the Court, the section is not attracted.

---