Order This Revision petition is directed against the order of the Magistrate at Hunsur, dated 7th October, 1967 rejecting the application made by the complainant praying that some witnesses might be summoned under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, to give evidence. The complaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 26th November, 1965. On 25th August, 1966 the complainant filed an additional list of witnesses. The examination of witnesses commenced only on 18th May, 1967. The said application for summoning witnesses under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, was made only on 6th September, 1967. The learned Magistrate has rejected that application on two grounds. The first ground was that the application was highly belated and the second ground was that it was not the proper stage at which the Court could exercise its power under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In coming to the conclusion that the application was highly belated, the learned Magistrate was influenced by the circumstance that the complaint was laid as early as on 26th November, 1965. Though the complaint was filed on 26th November, 1965, the examination of witnesses commenced only on 18th May, 1967, and the trial had been stayed by this Court during the pendency of Criminal Revision Petition arising from that case. Though seven witnesses have been examined, the complainant has some more witnesses to examine. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the delay in making the said application was so inordinate as to justify its dismissal on the ground of inordinate delay. Regarding the second ground, the learned Magistrate has not stated why he considered that it was not proper stage for the Court to exercise the power conferred under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section enables the Court to summon any person to give evidence at any stage of the enquiry, trial, or other proceedings. This ground for rejecting the said application, is also unsustainable. Mr. A. Shamanna, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that as seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined, if the complainant is permitted to summon witnesses whose names had not been stated earlier, the accused would be prejudiced in their defence. Mr. This ground for rejecting the said application, is also unsustainable. Mr. A. Shamanna, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that as seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined, if the complainant is permitted to summon witnesses whose names had not been stated earlier, the accused would be prejudiced in their defence. Mr. B.S. Keshava Iyengar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, stated that except one, all the witnesses proposed to be summoned, are officials of the Central Excise Department, who will speak to certain documents which are already on record that the other witness is the Patel of a village, and that the accused will not be prejudiced in their defence if these witnesses are summoned and examined. If after the examination of the witnesses now proposed to be summoned, the accused are permitted to recall and cross-examine further the prosecution witnesses who have already been examined, no prejudice will be caused to the accused in their defence by summoning and examining such new witnesses. In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed; the order of the learnt d Magistrate is set aside; and the learned Magistrate is directed to summon under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, the witnesses stated in the complainant's application, to give evidence. If the accused desire to cross-examine further any of the prosecution witnesses who have already been examined, the learned Magistrate shall summon such witnesses for further cross-examination. S.V.S.-----Petition allowed.