1. This application under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) is directed against an order dated 28-8-1995 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in S.T. No. 151 of 1991 by which the learned Court below allowed a petition filed by the prosecution under S. 311 of the Code and re-opened the entire prosecution case.

2. It appears that on the Fardbeyan of one Ram Ekbal Choudhary the police drew up a formal FIR and registered Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 123/90 for the offence under Ss. 341, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge dated 15-6-1993 under Ss. 341, 323, 325, 379 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. After following the necessary commitment enquiry the case went to the Court of the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur for holding the trial. Further case of the petitioner is that no prosecution witnesses could be produced before the trial Court though various dates such as 24-6-1993, 25-6-1993, 26-6-1993 and 28-6-1993 were fixed in it. The learned Court below also issued bailable and non-bailable warrants of arrest against the witnesses through the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur by his order dated 3-2-1994 but in spite of that no prosecution witnesses turned up after a lapse of more than two years of the no-opening of the case as a result of which the prosecution case was closed by an order dated 31-5-1995 by the trial Court and the statement of the accused persons under S. 313 of the Code was recorded. The case was adjourned to 6-6-1995 for defence, if any, and argument.

3. On this date the Hajiri of one witness by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was filed with a petition to which a rejoinder petition was filed on behalf of the defence. However, the learned trial Court by the impugned order re-opened the case of the prosecution under S. 311 of the Code and directed the Additional Public Prosecutor to produce his witnesses. Sec. 311 of the Code does not confer any such power on the trial Court to re-open the entire prosecution case. Since the trial Court had closed the prosecution case he cannot re-open the same which will amount to reviewing his earlier order dated 31-5-1995. The recourse toS. 311 cannot be taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed.

4. The parties have been heard at length. The impugned order is said to have been passed under S. 311 of the Code which runs as follows :

"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present :-

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any, person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

5 A perusal of this section clearly shows that it gives wide powers to the Court to examine, re-call or re-examine any person whose evidence appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. This section confers a wide discretion on the Court to act as the exigencies of the justice required. As this section stands, there is no limitation on the power of the Court arising from the stage to which the trial may have reached provided the Court is of the opinion that for the just decision of the case this step may be taken as has been held in the case of Jamatraj Kewalji Govrani V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178 : (1968 Cri LJ 231). The object of this section is to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for the just decision of the case. The true scope of S. 311 of the Code has been laid down in the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni V/s.