1. Counsel seek only for their clients' success, but the Judge must watch that justice triumphs." The above observations made by Lumpkin, J. in the case of Epps v. State were noted by Brother Dipak Misra, J. in the case reported as Heeralalv. State of M.P., 1997 (1) JLJ 290. The issue involved in the above case was vis-a-vis the power of the Court to summon a witness to appear in the Court in terms of the provisions contained !n section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The facts in brief in this case are as under:

It is not disputed that the prosecution in the list of witnesses has named two witnesses. These are; (1) Chatur Singh son of Mannu Singh Kamria and (2) Gajraj Singh son of Mannu Singh Kamria. These witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. The accused moved an application and prayed that these two witnesses be treated as 'Court Witnesses'. This petition has been allowed. It is against the above order, the present petition has been filed.

3. The provisions of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) are contained in two parties. These are;

(i) (a) The first part of the section gives the discretionary power