The Court is empowered to summon or examine any witness at any stage before pronouncement of the judgment if it appears to the Court to be essential to a just decision of the case by getting at the truth by all lawful means.

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is taken up for hearing, despite the names of the learned counsel being shown in the related cause list, has been pending since 1995. Considering the importance of the issue involved in this revision petition, this Court has requested Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

2. In this criminal revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-6-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hallari in CR. No. 552/97 under Section 304(A), I.P.C.

3. For better appreciation of the question raised in this revision, it is apt and necessary to refer the impugned order dated 23-6-1995 which may be extracted as under :--

"Accused present, judgment is deferred as I find that two materials witnesses are not examined. One is Nandi Barman and another some Deka Store Keeper of that time. Therefore, issue summon to them to appear before the Court as Court witness fixing 27-7-1995."

From the perusal of the record it reveals that earlier to passing of this impugned order, there were other orders passed by the said Court and the reference of the same would be relevant for proper adjudication of the case in hand. On 3-6-1995 the learned Magistrate passed the following order :--

"Accused present. Heard arguments completely. Fixed 17-6-1995 for judgment."

Thereafter on 17-6-1995, an another order was passed which runs as under :

"J. M. is on leave. Accused is present. Judgment not delivered. Fixed 23-6-1995 for Judgment."

4. Challenging the order dated 23-6-1995, the petitioner has stated that the learned Magistrate acted illegally and without jurisdiction in issuing the summons to two persons named in the order itself as Court witnesses when the matter was already fixed for judgment. His case is that once the matter has been fixed for pronouncement of judgment, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine the persons by directing them to appear in witnesses which may go against the petitioner prejudicing his interest.

5. Referring to Sections 311 and 353, Cr.P.C. Mr. Das has forcefully argued that the Court has the power to summon, examine or re-examine any person before pronouncement of the judgment if the same is essential to arrive at the just decision of the case. According to him in the instant case the learned Magistrate exercised her power in accordance with law and there is no illegality in issuing summons to the persons as recorded in the impugned order dated 23-6-1995.

6. Both the Sections 311 and 353, Cr.P.C. may be referred 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 be essential to the just decision of the case."

353. Judgment.-- (1) The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the Presiding Officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders :--

a) by delivering the whole of the judgment; or

b) by reading out the whole of the judgment; or

c) by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader.

A combined reading of both the Sections goes to show that the Court is empowered to issue summons to material witness or to examine person present or to re-examine any person already examined before culmination of the trial, i.e. before pronouncement of the judgment by the Court after termination of the trial.

7. The question raised herein is whether a witness can be summoned to appear as Court witn