JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition to revise the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of fine of Rs. 40/. each passed by a 3rd Class Magistrate of Bargarh which was upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge. The prosecution case, as believed by the lower Courts, is that the Petitioners committed criminal trespass in respect of a part of plot No. 632 of the complainant and unyoked the plough of the complainant while he was ploughing the disputed land with the help of his field servant. 2. The Petitioners appear to have put forward their claim of possession over the disputed land though it was not so clearly stated in their statement. The two courts believed the prosecution evidence as regards the complainant's possession over the land. As regards the incident also, the courts laid great importance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. Special emphasis was laid on the evidence of P.W. 4, who is said to be a dis-interested witness. 3. Mr. Chatterjee raised an interesting argument regarding the examination of P.W. 4 at a belated stage. It appears that this witness was examined by the Police during investigation but he was not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet, and a copy of his statement before the Police was not supplied to the accused before the commencement of the trial as required by the recent amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Chatterji contended that u/s 251 A, Code of Criminal Procedure if a witness is not cited in the charge-sheet and copies of his statement before the Police during investigation are not supplied to the accused it will be illegal for the prosecution to examine that witness at a belated stage of the trial. I am not however, satisfied that such a belated examination would be wholly illegal, though there may be circumstances when it may cause prejudice to an accused. Sub-section (1) of Section 251-A Code of Criminal Procedure does not say that the witnesses who may be examined by the prosecution to support its case must all have been cited in the charge-sheet. Sub-section (1) of Section 251-A Code of Criminal Procedure does not say that the witnesses who may be examined by the prosecution to support its case must all have been cited in the charge-sheet. Even if the names of some witnesses are omitted, it is always open to the prosecution to examine them at a later stage, provided adequate notice is given to the accused, copies of the statements made by those witnesses before the Police during investigation are supplied to the accused, and he is given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine them. In some circumstances, he may be entitled to an adjournment for the purpose of cross-examining these belated witnesses and the proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 251-A Code of Criminal Procedure confers on the Magistrate, the power to grant an adjournment for cross-examination. 4. Mr. Chatterji relied on a recent decision of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1957 Mad 466 . In that case when the prosecution, during trial, wanted to examine additional witnesses, an objection was taken by the accused and when that objection was over-ruled the accused moved the High Court in revision. The High Court held that the examination of additional witnesses after the commencement of the trial should not be allowed tightly without a suitable and appropriate explanation from the prosecution and that the evidence of such witnesses may be expunged from the record. But this case does not support the extreme proposition raised by Mr. Chatterji that the evidence of witnesses is wholly inadmissible under all circumstances. The question ultimately depends upon whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused as regards his right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses by their belated production and in considering the question of prejudice the fact that an objection was taken at the earliest opportunity to such examination is very relevant. 5. In the present case, however, I am not satisfied that any prejudice has been caused by the belated examination of P.W. 4 by the prosecution. Doubtless, his evidence and that of the Investigating Police Officer (P.W. 6) shows that he Was examined by the Police during investigation. The Police Officer (P.W. 6) further stated that he gave copies of the statements of all witnesses to the accused persons. Doubtless, his evidence and that of the Investigating Police Officer (P.W. 6) shows that he Was examined by the Police during investigation. The Police Officer (P.W. 6) further stated that he gave copies of the statements of all witnesses to the accused persons. He was not further questioned as to whether he gave a copy of the statement of this particular witness to the accused, but he stated that he did not make a separate record of the statement of this witness but merely noted down that he (the witness) fully supported the statement of Sagar Sahu. No objection was taken by the accused when P.W. 4 was examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, the accused cross-examined him at some length. It was not urged before me that there was any material contradiction between the statement of this witness before the Police and his evidence in Court so as to cause prejudice to the accused by the omission to confront him with these statements during cross-examination. Hence, I do not think that the conviction can be set aside merely because P.W. 4 on whom the lower appellate court relied was not cited in the charge-sheet. He was cross-examined properly and at no previous stage did the accused ask for any further adjournment or for recalling this witness for the purpose of cross-examination in the light of his statement made before the Police. 6. For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any ground for interfering with the conviction. The sentence of Rs. 40/- on each of the Petitioners however seems to be excessive. While therefore, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 447 I.P.C. 1 would reduce the sentence to a fine of Rs. 20/- on each of the Petitioners, in default of which each of them shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Subject to this modification in the sentence the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed