( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Fourth additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada in C. F. No 451 of 1982 in C. C. No. 333 of 1979.

( 2 ) THE learned Assistant Public prosecutor filed a memo on 9-2-1982 requesting the learned Magistrate to issue summons to the clerk of the Court of the VI Addl. Jundicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada to cause production of the acquittance register (pay bill register) from 1-4-1979 to II-7-1980 and recall D. W. 1 for further cross-examination on the basis of the above record. That petition was oppoved by the accused. The Learned Magistrate allowed the memo under Section 311 Crl. P. C on the ground that the recalling and rc-examination on of D. W. 1 is nccessery for the production of the acquittandce register from 1-4-1979 to 11-7-1980 and for confronting D. W. I on the point whether the accused can sign in english or not, and it is necessary so that the Court an arrive at the just decision of the Case. Crl RC 136 of 1982 dt. 4-10-1982

( 3 ) THE Learned Magistrate also toot the view tba tthe scope of Section 311 Cr. P. C. is very wide And any amount of evidence ca tf be adduced for just decision of the case before the pronouncement of judgment and this includes the production of document and examining the defence witnesses as in the prosecution case on the basis of the document.

( 4 ) SRI T. Balireddy, the learaed counsel for the petitioner, contends that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the scope and effect of the provisions of Section 311 Crl P. C. He contends that when p. W. 3, who is a prosecution witness himself, admits that the accused does not know English and the same was corroborated by the defence witness, d. W. I, it is not open to the Magistrate to summon the acquittance register from 1-4-1979 to 11-7-1980 as it ia neither necessary nor tit is warranted under law since the summoning of the clerk of the Court to rebut the evidence of D. W. 1 is prohibited by law. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in Jamatraj vs. State of maharashtra AIR,1968 S. C. 178 and also the decision of the Madras High court in re. vs. Mahadevan AIR 1951 Madras 707.

( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that if the Court feels it tssentir. I to summon any witness as a court witness for just decision of the cast, it is always open to the Magistrate to summon such a witness and examine him at any stage and Section 311 Cr. P. C, gives that power to the Magistrate.

( 6 ) SECTION 311 Cr. P. C. of the pwesent Code corresponds to Section 540 of the Old Code. The scope and effect of Section 540 became the subject-matter of several decisions of the various High Courts as well as the Supre Court. The Supreme Court examined the scope and effect of section 540 in Jamatraj vs State of Maharashtra Supra. In that case after the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused was examined under section 342 Cr. P. C. and he stated that he had no defence evidence but filed a written statement and claimed that no offence has been disclosed against him in the prosecution case as alleged before the Court. That statement was filed on July 15th 1965. The following day, the prosecution applied for the examination of Dutta, Inspector of Customs, Bombay as a court witness in the interests of justice. Dutta "gave evidence as a Court witness. After Duty s evidence one of the accused (Govani) was examined under Sec. 342 Cr. P. C. again and was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence. He stated that he had nothing further to add and no defence evidence to lead. The Magistrate after considering the arguments convicted Govani and sentenced him to one year s regoroul imprisoement and ft fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further R. f. for six months for each of of the two counts. Govani appealed to the High Court. His contention in the High Court was that the evidence of Dutta was improperly receive