S.L. Jain, J.

Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth, 'the Code'), petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 8-8-1997 passed by JMFC, Mandla in Criminal Case No. 2330/95 and also the proceedings of the said case.

The facts giving rise to the petition are that Forest Department filed a complaint against the petitioners on 10-11-1983 alleging that they have committed an offence punishable u/s 26 of Indian Forest Act (henceforth 'the Act'). The prosecution examined certain witnesses and the case was fixed for judgment. At the time of writing the judgment, the learned trial Magistrate found that material witnesses Jugraj, Imrat, Shanker and Komal Singh, who felled the trees at the instance of the accused persons and whose evidence is essential for just decision of the case, have not been examined as their names were not in the list of witnesses, therefore, vide impugned order, he directed to summon these witnesses.

I have heard Shri H.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Asseem Dixit, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of the witnesses who were directed to be summoned vide the impugned order, were not mentioned in the list of prosecution witnesses. He also submits that filing of the list of prosecution witnesses is essential unless the complainant is the only witness in the case and along with the summons issued under sub-section (1) of section 204 of the Code the list of witnesses shall be served. It was not competent for the Magistrate to issue process without complying with this mandatory provision.

Non-filing of the list of prosecution witnesses and not mentioning the names of some of the witnesses in the list are two different things. In this case, admittedly, the list of the prosecution witnesses was filed. The only flaw that appears to be in this case is that the names of the witnesses who have been directed to be summoned by the impugned order, were not mentioned in the list of witnesses. It cannot be said that there was any violation of mandatory provision of law. The powers u/s 311 of the Code are very wide. The Court can, at any stage of the trial, summon any person as a witness. No embargo has been put in section 311 of the Code that only those witnesses can be summoned whose names find place in the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution along with the complaint. The object of the section is obviously to enable the Court to arrive at the truth or otherwise of the fact under investigation by summoning and examining the witnesses who can give relevant evidence irrespective of the fact whether a particular party wants to summon them or not. This section confers a wide discretion on the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require.

The section consists of two parts; one gives the discretionary powers to the Court and the other imposes obligation on it. Where the evidence of a witness appears to be essential for just decision of the case, it is the obligation on the Court to summon him. When the trial Court, on the basis of the material on record, found that the evidence of the witnesses mentioned in the order impugned is essential for just decision of the case, it was obligatory for the Magistrate to summon them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the evidence of the witnesses was not essential for the just decision of the case. The Court cannot be precluded from exercising its discretion only on the ground that the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the list of the prosecution witnesses or the case was posted for judgment. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned and the same does not call for any interference.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the proceedings before the trial Court should be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay also. The complai