( 1. ) THIS petition is filed by the applicant under the provisions of section 482/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging an order passed by Sessions judge, Bhind, on 7-7-1984.

( 2. ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri D. K. Katare and Shri N. D. Singhal, learned counsel for non-applicants Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 that the applicant has no locus standi to invoke the revisional jurisdiction or the inherent powers of this Court.

( 3. ) FACTS. On 7-4-1972 a report was lodged by the applicant in the police station, and the police registered a case under sections 420,467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code against non-applicants Nos. 2 to 5. It was nearly after three years that a charge-sheet was filed by the police on 7-8-1975, The trial Court fixed the date 23-6-1977 and directed the prosecution to produce its witnesses. Since then, till 1984 the prosecution has been getting opportunities to produce the prosecution witnesses. It was only on 19-6-1984 that Annexure A was filed by the Public Prosecutor under the provisions of section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, for examining M. S. Chauhan, R. R. Chaudhari, jaichand Patwari and other witnesses as Court witnesses. The trial Court refused to exercise its judicial discretion conferred upon it under section 311, Criminal Procedure code on the ground that the prosecution had lost the original records and a very long rope was given to it for examining its witnesses. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the applicant knocked at the doors of the Sessions Judges Court in revision, which dismissed the revision petition and maintained that the applicant had no locus standi to file the revision before it. The Sessions Court further refused to interfere in the judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court. It is against this order that Shri B. G. Apte, learned counsel for the applicant, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court.

( 4. ) THIS Court in Raghuvir Singh, 1986 MPWN 121, has held that the inherent powers enshrined in section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be invoked if the real purpose is to contravene specific and mandatory provisions contained in section 397 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. But without entering into any further controversy, I propose to confine myself only to the issues raised at the bar. Shri B. G. Apte contended that the judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court was wrong in law and, similarly, the Sessions Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. Admittedly, the provisions contained in section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, are discretionary, but they are required to be exercised only judicially. This section confers very wide powers upon a court in the matter of summoning witnesses, but it is not to be forgotten that wider the powers greater is the exercise of discretion required of the Magistrate. It is not intended by this section that the Magistrate should exercise his powers at the bidding of any person, but the powers are given to prevent any danger or miscarriage of justice owing to some particular witness not having been called. From the record it is apparent that the trial Court tried its best to give all possible assistance and opportunity to the prosecution for procuring the presence of these witnesses. If the prosecuting agency fails to avail of the opportunities and privileges granted to it by the Court, then again and again no person has authority to ask the Court to exercise its discretionary powers under section 311, Criminal Procedure Code. Undoubtedly, for the ends of justice, liberal use of the provisions of section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, is warranted. In this case, the non-applicants (2 to 5) are being prosecuted from the year 1975 and the prosecution started its evidence from the year 1977, and for these more than 9 years, the non-applicants are facing the trial, which is being prolonged from time to time by the ingenuity of the parties or by the machina