Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2). By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 5th March, 1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bar in criminal original case No.135/96 be quash- ed and set aside it. It amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in criminal case No. 130/96, State vs. Sugan Chand & Ors., the petitioner Deep Chand and Prem Chand were examined as prosecution witnesses. Both of them were cross-examined at great length and as such it cannot be said that the accused persons were denied the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioners but on 13.9.95, an application was submitted on behalf of the accused persons (who are non-petitioners No. 2 to 7) to re-call the petitioner under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for further cross-examination and that application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 5th March, 1997, without any coge- nt and satisfactory reasons and, therefore, the impugned order dated 5th March, 1997 deserves to be quashed and set aside as it amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court.

(4). Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under:- 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 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 makes it clear that under Section 311 Cr.P.C. po- wer has been given to the court to examine, or re- examine any person as a witness, if the court considers it necessary to do so for the just decision of the case. If this section is read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, it would be clear that the power under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act is conferred on the court and not on the parties and, therefore, it is the court alone which can exercise the powers under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the court is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the just decision of the case. The examination and re-examination which is contemplated by Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of the Evidence Act is to be made by the court and not by the parties. Viewed in this light, if the power under Sec. 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is used by the court for the purpose of enabling any party to examine or re-examine the witness, it would be impermissible to do so. Of course, the court has unfettered powers to examine and re-examine any witness under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. at any time in any inquiry or trial.

(6). The rights of the parties to examine and cross-examine the witness are regulated by the provisions contained in Chapter 18, 19, 20 and 21 as well as by Section 137 to 161 of the Evidence Act. In a warrant case, the trial before the Magistrate is to be conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XIX of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Chapter XIX is in two parts. Part a prescribes procedure for cases instituted on a police report and Part B of the Cha- pter XIX prescribes procedure for the cases instituted otherwise than on police report. In the instant case, the case was instituted on a police report and, therefore, Part A of the Chapter 19 is applicable. Section 242 of the Cr.P.C. deals with evidence for the prosecution. Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document