The wide discretion conferred on the court by Section 311, Cr.PC empowers the court to summon or examine witnesses, and the reliability and materiality of witnesses should be determined through proper scrutiny and cross-examination.

1. The applicants accused being aggrieved by the order dated 11-1-2001, passed in Sessions Trial No. 7/2000, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, granting the application of Sukul Ram and Prabhu Ram for their examination as witnesses, have come to this Court.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the present applicants had committed murder of certain persons and as the eye-witness account was available against them, they were liable to be prosecuted. During the course of the trial, number of witnesses were examined. On 2-11-2000 Sukul Ram and Prabhu Ram, referred to as the proposed witnesses made an application duly supported with an affidavit that they are material witnesses of the trial, therefore, and as they had seen the accused persons committing the offence, their statements be recorded in the trial. The application was opposed by the present applicants, but the learned trial Court granted the application and directed that the two persons be examined as witnesses.

3. Shri R.S. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the witnesses already examined by the prosecution do nowhere say that the proposed witnesses were near the spot or had seen the incident or could witness the incident, they could not be examined as additional witnesses under Section 311, Cr.PC. He also submits that unless the Court records finding that the witnesses are material witnesses and their examination is required for just and proper disposal of the matter, the persons cannot be examined as witnesses. Referring to the inquest of the dead bodies, he submits that Sukul Ram and Prabhuram were present at the time of inquest but as they did not narrate anything to the police it must be held that they are concocted and brought-up persons. It is lastly submitted that the prosecution did not make any application for their examination and as they have voluntarily offered themselves as witnesses, they cannot be examined as witnesses.

4. Miss Singhai and Shri Shivraj Singh, learned counsels for the State and Objector submit that the Court below is not faultered in granting the application and the arguments raised by the applicants are mis-conceived.

5. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the records.

6. For proper appreciation of the dispute it would be apt to refer to Section 311, Cr.PC. Section 311, Cr.PC reads as under :--

"Section 311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present -- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings 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."

7. From a perusal of the language employed in Section 311, Cr.PC, it would clearly appear that the section empowers the Court to summon material witness or to examine a person present in the Court or to recall a witness already examined. The section in fact confers wide discretion on the Court to act in view of the exigencies or to meet the demand of justice. This section if gives unfettered discretion to the Court, then it would not be proper for a Revisional Court to interfere in the matter, unless it is shown that the discretion has been exercised illegally or with material irregularity or without any jurisdiction. There is no dispute before me that the Court had jurisdiction to examine or summon the witness, but the argument is that as the witnesses already examined in the Court did not name the proposed witnesses as witnesses of the incident, they cannot be examined. The argument is that these witnesses are unreliable because neither they had been examined by the police nor they had come forward on the earlier occasion. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is based on the foundation that because