Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. The matter is up for final hearing with consent.

2. The applicants, who are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in R.T.C. No. 1996, under sections 109 and 494 of Indian Penal Code pending before J.M.F.C. Shrigonda, have filed this application invoking section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. on application of the complainant, who is respondent No.2 before this Court, for calling certain witnesses under section 311, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. According to the applicants, the case was pending before J.M.F.C. since against as many as 15 accused persons. It is contended that the Complainant/respondent No.2 had completed and closed her evidence and filed is to that effect on 18-12-2003. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for fixed arguments. However, suddenly on 26-8-2004 respondent No.2 filed application 157 seeking permission to examine 9 more witnesses and direction for issues of summonses to some of them. The application was opposed by the accused persons including the present applicants. However, after hearing both the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on Exh.157 on 9-9- 2004 allowing that application. According to the applicants, the said order is contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscious. No

s are given in the application, how the evidence of the above said witnesses necessary for the just decision nor any such reason was given in the impugned . It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to take note that the evidence was closed by the complainant long back on or about 18-12-2003. It is contended that the learned trial Court did not apply the case law properly. On grounds, the applicants sought the said order to be quashed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application 157, impugned order thereon as well as Roznama of the case before the Magistrate. At the outset, it may be stated that though, the date of the impugned order is shown to be 9-9-2004 in the present application, in fact the order appears to have been passed on 7-9-2004. Mr. Shirsath, learned 1 vehemently contended that in view of the facts stated above, respondent complainant could not be allowed to produce any more evidence as it amounted to enable the prosecution to fill up lacuna in the case and in support of this he placed reliance upon R. N. Kakkar vs. Hanif Gafoor Naviwala and 1996(2) ALL MR 466. Mr. Nagarkar, learned counsel for respondent No. reliance upon several authorities, in support of his contention that this was attempt just to plug the loopholes in the prosecution evidence or to fill but it was necessary in the interest of justice and such power under sect could be exercised by the learned Magistrate at any stage. Mr. Nagarkar, contended that if the record is carefully seen the complainant had never the evidence at the stage of trial and she had also given sufficient reason application Exh.157 seeking permission to examine 9 more witnesses.

5. Before considering the legal position on the subject, it will be to state the facts correctly.

6. The complaint was filed in 1996 and process was issued against accused persons. Roznama reveals that on most of the dates, the accused were not present before the Court. On number of occasions it became necessary to issue warrants against them but the warrants were got cancelled. On the occasions only some of the accused used to remain present and most accused used to be absent and exemption was sought for their attendance. Evidence of the complainant herself before framing of completed on 11-9-2003. Thereafter, matter was adjourned to 9-10-2003 chance for further evidence. On 13-11-2003 she again sought short adjournment for hearing and on 18-12-2003 she filed a purshis Exh.129-A close evidence before Charge. Thereafter, arguments were heard and on 22charge was framed against accused persons. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for eviden