Judgment In this revision petition arising out of a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, two questions are raised by the petitioner, a member of the B party. The first is whether the petitioner can summon members of the A party as witnesses. The Executive First Class Magistrate has answered this question in the negative following the decision of this Court in Narayana Pillai v. Kalliyani Amma (1963) K.L.T. 537. observing that the practice of a party causing his opponent to be summoned as a witness was disapproved in rather strong terms by their Lordships of the Privy Council and that as a matter of right a party cannot have the opposite party examined as a witness. And on this question no serious argument has been adduced; and the decision of the Magistrate is therefore upheld. The second question is whether the petitioner can summon, under sub-section. (9) of section 145, persons other than those who had filed affidavits as contemplated by sub- section (1) of the section. On this question two lines of decisions have been brought to my notice. Decisions like Bhagwat Singh v. State A.I.R. 1959 All. 763. and S. Jodh Singh v. Mahant Dhagambar Bass A.I.R. 1961 Punj. 187. take the view that under sub- section (9) only such persons who had filed affidavits under sub- section (1) can be called. And decisions like Kanhaiyalal v. Devi Singh A.I.R. 1961 Madh. Pra. 302.Mirza Mohammed Aziz v. Sardar HussainA.I.R. 1962 All. 68. and Chellamuthu Padayachi v. Rajavel (1964) 2 MLJ. 128:(1964) MLJ. (Crl.) 511: take the wider view that under sub- section (9) any person, not necessarily a person who had filed an affidavit, can be called. (I am not referring to all the decisions brought to my notice). Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended in 1955, the object of the amendment being to allow the Court to dispose of a proceeding under that section on affidavit evidence. Sub- section (1) has been amended by adding that the Court when issuing a notice shall further require the parties to put in such documents, or to adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evidence of such persons, as they rely upon in support of their claims. Sub- section (1) has been amended by adding that the Court when issuing a notice shall further require the parties to put in such documents, or to adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evidence of such persons, as they rely upon in support of their claims. Sub- section (4) has also been amended; and the Court is given power to decide the dispute by perusing written statements of the parties, documents and affidavits put in by them and also after hearing them. A time limit of two months, as far as may be practicable, from the date of appearance of the parties is also fixed for concluding the enquiry. A new proviso has been added to the sub- section that the Magistrate may, if he so thinks fit, summon and examine any person whose affidavit had been put in as to the facts contained therein. The two provisos to sub- section (4) already existing have also been retained. Sub- section (9) of the old section which ran: “The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing” has been also retained in the same form. Now, the question for consideration is whether a person who had not filed an affidavit under sub- section (1) can be examined under sub- section (9). The purpose of the amendment of section 145, as already stated, is to eliminate the delay in the proceeding and to enable the Court to decide the dispute on affidavit evidence. This is clear from the several amendments to sub- sections (1) and (4). The new proviso to sub- section (4) restricts the power of the Magistrate to call only those persons who had already put in affidavits. In the light of these, the expression “hear the parties” in this sub- section can only mean “hear arguments of the parties”. Under the original sub- section (9), any person could have been called as a witness on the application of either of the parties; and no amendment has been. made to that sub-section. It is only reasonable to think that the Legislature left this sub- section intact as it never thought it necessary to make any change therein. Under the original sub- section (9), any person could have been called as a witness on the application of either of the parties; and no amendment has been. made to that sub-section. It is only reasonable to think that the Legislature left this sub- section intact as it never thought it necessary to make any change therein. If the Legislature thought that the newly added proviso to sub- section (4) should control this sub-section, it could have easily made its intention clear by making: some change therein. In the absence of that, who all could have been examined under sub- section (9) as it originally stood can be examined even after the amendments of 1955. The reasoning of Desai, J., of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwat Singh's case1and the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Jodh Singh's case2is that if persons other than those who had filed affidavits are allowed to be examined under sub- section (9), the purpose of the amendments would be lost and there would be delay in the proceedings. These decisions have also laid down that what is contained in sub- section (9) is only the procedure to get the witness to the Court and not any substantive right of the party, which is regulated by the first proviso to sub- section (4). It has even been suggested that sub- section (9) has been left as it is due to an oversight of the legislature. On the other hand, the reasoning of the learned Judges in the other line of decisions is that since the powers of the Court under section 540 of the Code are left intact even in regard to proceedings under section 145 , sub- section (9) of section 145 must contain the same power as is contained in section 540. In other words, this reasoning, when analysed and scrutinised, reveals that the power under section 145(9) is the same power that is envisaged by section 540. In my opinio: a, section 540 contains a special, or, if I may use the word in the context, an extraordinary power. In exercise of that power any Court may call any person as a witness at any stage of any proceeding: the Court may also examine any person present, though not summoned as a witness. This applies to proceedings under section 145. In exercise of that power any Court may call any person as a witness at any stage of any proceeding: the Court may also examine any person present, though not summoned as a witness. This applies to proceedings under section 145. as well: and this power can be exercised suo motu too. The power under section 145(9), is not so wide; and it may be exercised only at the instance of a party. The purpose of retaining sub- section (9) intact may now be considered. If a witness, for instance, is not prepared to give an affidavit to either party and is not also prepared to come to Court without summons from Court, there will be no means of getting him to Court and examining him if sub- section (9) is confined to persons who had already filed affidavits. Therefore, the retention of sub- section (9) must have been deliberate and with a purpose. Of course, the Court must use this sub- section in such a way as to give effect to this purpose, at the same time, without losing sight of the purpose behind the amendments, the elimination of delay. For the guidance of the magistrates I may now point out the scheme of section 145 after the amendments. Under sub- section (1) the magistrate shall make an order requiring the parties to put in written statements of their respective claims and also requiring them to file such documents, or to adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evidence of such persons, as they rely upon in support of their respective claims. Under sub- section (4) the magistrate shall normally decide the dispute on he aforesaid evidence placed before him, namely, the written statements of the parties, the documents filed by them and the affidavits of persons relied upon by them, and also after hearing their arguments. Under the first proviso to sub- section (4) the magistrate may, if he so thinks fit, summon and examine any person whose affidavit had, already been filed under sub- section (1). If a party applies under sub- section (9), the magistrate may call even witnesses who had not filed affidavits: but the magistrate must always bear in mind that the proceeding, as far as practicable, must be concluded within two months of the appearance of the parties. If a party applies under sub- section (9), the magistrate may call even witnesses who had not filed affidavits: but the magistrate must always bear in mind that the proceeding, as far as practicable, must be concluded within two months of the appearance of the parties. Under this sub- section the magistrate may also direct any person to produce any document or thing. Lastly, in appropriate cases, the magistrate has the wider powers under section 540 as well. Now, I come to the case in hand. The complaint of the petitioner is that the magistrate has refused to call two witnesses whom the petitioner wanted to examine. I do not find anything in the order of the magistrate refusing to call these witnesses: but I find that the magistrate has posted the enquiry for hearing arguments without examining these witnesses. The magistrate was bound to act under sub- section (9) of section 145; and since he already issued summons exercising his discretion in favour of calling these witnesses, I think he must have examined them. The revision petition is allowed; and the magistrate is directed to examine the two witnesses to whom he already issued summons. It is brought to my notice that the matter is very urgent. Therefore, I direct the magistrate to close the enquiry within six weeks of the receipt of records from this Court. The records will be sent back without delay. Revision allowed; directions given.