Order This revision case is against the order of the Second Presidency Magistrate, George, Town, Madras, to examine the State Examiner of Questioned Documents as a Court witness in C.C. No. 7 of 1963 against the petitioner herein, for an offence under section 408, Indian Penal Code. The order was passed by the learned Magistrate under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, after both the prosecution and the defence closed their evidence. The charge against the petitioner was that while he was employed as Manager of Plastic Crafts at Mount Road, he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of certain plastic granules delivered at his office. Endorsements in two invoices purported to have been made and signed by the petitioner, and marked in the case as Exhibits P-2 and P-20 were relied on by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case that the plastic granules had been received by the petitioner. The genuineness of these endorsements were questioned by the petitioner, but apart from oral testimony, no expert evidence was let in on the side of the prosecution to make out that the endorsements and signatures therein were that of the petitioner. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the petitioner took photo copies of Exhibits P-2 and P-20 got them examined by a Handwriting Expert and examined the Expert as D.W. 4 to show that the said endorsements and signatures could not have been made by the petitioner. The case was then posted for arguments. At that stage, the prosecution filed an application under section 540 read with section 510, Criminal Procedure Code, for opinion of the Stale Examiner of Questioned Documents as to whether the person who wrote Exhibit P-2 or any portion thereof and Exhibit P-4 could or could not have written Exhibit P-20. For this purpose the prosecution further requested the Court to forward along with the aforesaid documents, Exhibits P-10, P-18, P-28 and Exhibits D 6, D-7, D-48, D-49 and D-5C. For this purpose the prosecution further requested the Court to forward along with the aforesaid documents, Exhibits P-10, P-18, P-28 and Exhibits D 6, D-7, D-48, D-49 and D-5C. The belated application made by the Assistant State Prosecutor was opposed by the petitioner and the Trial Magistrate agreed with this contention that the reasons given in paragraph 1 of the petition did not make out a case that the opinion of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents was essential for a just decision of the case as the Court was not concerned with the jeopardy to which the position, prestige and integrity of P.Ws. 1 and 2 might stand exposed by reason of the evidence of D.W. 4, the Expert, examined on the side of the petitioner. For this reason, the learned Magistrate found no ground for allowing the petition under the latter part of section 540, Indian Penal Code. Nevertheless he passed the order sought to be revised giving his reasons as follows: “However it cannot be said that the opinion of the witness now sought for, is totally unnecessary and that the Court will be acting arbitrarily or to the prejudice of the accused if powers under the first part of section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, are exercised. I am of opinion that it is better, therefore, to obtain the opinion sought for. Address the State Examiner of Questioned Documents.” The question for consideration is whether an order of the nature passed by the learned Magistrate, halting in conception, was called for or justified on the language of section 540, Criminal Procedure Code. I might as well as quote the language of the section: “Any Court, may at any stage of any enquiry, 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 and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case.” The order, as I indicated, was passed under the first part of section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, no doubt, in the exercise of the learned Magistrate's discretion; but the question for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate had satisfied himself that it was necessary in the interests of justice. There is hardly any indication to that effect in the order of the learned Magistrate. The witness sought to be examined, though an Expert, could only give opinion evidence and the question whether such opinion is totally unnecessary or whether the Court would be acting arbitrarily or to the prejudice of the accused in summoning him or seeking his evidence is not what is contemplated under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code. What the learned Magistrate should have satisfied himself was whether the opinion or the evidence of the witness was necessary in the interests of justice. That aspect has not been considered; nor does it appear from the language of the order that he had considered the evidence of the witness necessary to a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, the Magistrate has a discretion to call any witness at any time for any purpose; but such discretion must be held to be wrongly exercised when witness is called by the Court to enable the prosecution to cross-examine the witness, more especially after the case has been closed. This is the view expressed by a Bench of this Court in Collet v. Emperor1. As pointed out in King v. Dora Harris2 a Judge at a criminal trial has a right to call a witness not called by either the prosecution or the defence, if in his opinion that course is necessary in the interests of justice. But in order that injustice should not be done to an accused person, a Judge should not call a witness in a criminal trial after the case is closed except in a case where a matter arises ex improviso which no human ingenuity can foresee. It seems to me, therefore, that in the circumstances of this case, the order directing the summoning of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents after the prosecution and the defence had closed their evidence was not justified and that the said order has to be quashed. The order of the learned Presidency Magistrate dated 31st May, 1963 is accordingly set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously. V.S.-----Order set aside.