JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - In a pending criminal case, ICC 377 of 1968 u/s 354, 448 and 323, Indian Penal Code, instituted on 19-7-1968, prosecution witnesses (p.ws. 1 to 4) were cross-examined after charge and the prosecution closed on 19-1-1970. The case was reposted to 9-3-1970 for recording the statement of the accused. On 9-3-1970, an application was filed by the accused to recall p.ws. 1 to 4 for further cross-examination. This application was considered by the Court on 20-3-1970 and the learned Magistrate passed an order allowing the application in part in so far as it related to p.ws. 1 and 2 and rejected the prayer to recall p. ws. 3 and 4. He further directed that the accused persons do pay Rs. 10/. as costs to be paid to p. ws. 1 and 2. The case was reposted to 18-4-1970 for further cross-examination of p. ws. 1 & 2. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time on Borne ground or other, the last of such adjourned dates being 3-1-1971. It was recorded that day that the parties were present but as the trial Magistrate was transferred the case was to stand over till 5-2-1971 for hearing. On 5-2-1971, the case was transferred to another Magistrate and he noticed that till then the accused had not deposited in Court Rs. 10/- as ordered on 20-3-1970 towards the expenses of p.ws. 1 and 2. Obviously because of this, steps had not been taken to summon p.ws. 1 and 2 and the case could not proceed. The Magistrate refused to give any further opportunity to cross-examine p.ws.1 and 2 and closed the prosecution case and adjourned the case to 5-2-1071 for recording statements of accused. After this order was recorded, the accused persons prayed for half an hour's for depositing Rs. 10/- towards the cost of witnesses which the learned Magistrate rejected. 2. The accused then made an unsuccessful attempt before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack to get the case transferred from the file of the Magistrate. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded and on 10-7-1971, the case was posted to 28-7-1971 for examination of defence witnesses. The accused thereupon filed a list of defence witnesses to be examined which contained amongst others the names of p.ws. 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded and on 10-7-1971, the case was posted to 28-7-1971 for examination of defence witnesses. The accused thereupon filed a list of defence witnesses to be examined which contained amongst others the names of p.ws. 1, 2 and 3. It is not clear from the records as to when this list was flied but summons to these persons had been issued only on 27-7-1971. On the next day when the case was put up, no defence witness was present. The learned Magistrate discovered the list of witnesses filed by the defence contained the names of p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 and therefore called upon the defence to substantiate how it is entitled to call as its witnesses persons who had already been cross-examined by it. After hearing both parties the learned Magistrate by his order dated 2-8-1971 rejected the prayer of the defence to call p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 as its own witnesses. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. 3. This is a warrant case instituted on private complaint. In such a case, the accused has three opportunities available to him to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The first is at the stage when the prosecution witnesses are examined u/s 252(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and before a charge is framed. The second opportunity is after the charge is framed when u/s 256, Code of Criminal Procedure he has got right to cross-examine such of the prosecution witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded and who also might have been cross-examined before charge. It is thereafter that the accused enters on his defence and the stage of Section 257 is reached. Section 257, Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure for issue of process for compelling the production of evidence at the instance of the accused for the purpose of his defence. Under the provision of Sub-section (1) of that section the Magistrate has a duty to issue process to compel the attendance of witnesses named by the accused for the purpose of examination or cross-examination except where the Court considers that the application to summon any of the witnesses has been made for the purposes of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. Sub-section (1) thus provides inter alia that the accused is entitled to the issue of process for compelling the attendance also of prosecution witnesses cross examination subject to the discretion of the Magistrate to refuse the application for process on the ground of its being made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. The proviso to Section 257, Code of Criminal Procedure which enacts an exception to the rule, however, makes it clear that where the accused had cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness after the charge is framed, the attendance of such witness shall not be composed u/s 257 unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is so necessary for the ends of justice. Thus, in such cases, the accused has no absolute and unfettered right to ask the Court to summon the witnesses for cross-examination. 4. It is not disputed that p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 in this case had been cross-examined by the defence after charge. While furnishing the list of defence witnesses to be summoned for examination which list included the names of p.ws. 1, 2 and 3, the defence had not furnished any ground to convince the Court as to why the further examination of p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 is necessary. Indeed, as appears from the order-sheet dated 2-8-1971, there is nothing to indicate in the list filed by the defence that it contained the names of some of the prosecution witnesses. The Court evidently thought that those were the names of the defence witnesses who were to be summoned for the first time and issued summons, and when the truth came to light this order was recalled. The learned Magistrate thereafter heard both parties at length and passed a well-reasoned order rejecting the defence prayer to summon p.ws. 1, 2 and 3. During the course of bearing it appears to have been urged before the learned Magistrate that the only ground for summoning p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 for further cross-examination is that after charge they could not be properly cross-examined. 1, 2 and 3. During the course of bearing it appears to have been urged before the learned Magistrate that the only ground for summoning p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 for further cross-examination is that after charge they could not be properly cross-examined. The mere fact that it might be possible from further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to extract from them some more material which might be advantageous to the defence is not a sufficient ground to recall such witnesses but so far as this case is concerned, an opportunity was given to the defence to recall p.ws. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination subsequent to their discharge after cross-examination after charge. On 19-1-1970, after the last witness examined before charge had been cross-examined after charge and discharged, the case was posted to 9-2-1970 for recording the statement of the &accused. On 9-2-1970, the case (could not be taken up as the Magistrate was on casual leave and it was reposted to 9-3-1970. It was on 9-3-1970 that an application was filed on behalf of the accused to recall p.ws. 1 to 4 for further cross-examination. This application was considered on 20-3-1970 and the learned Magistrate for reasons stated by him allowed the defence to recall only p.ws. 1 and 2 for cross-examination and directed payment of Rs. 10/- as costs to be paid to p.ws. 1 and 2. The defence lost this opportunity due to its own default in not depositing this amount. 5. A narration of events as they occurred makes it abundantly clear that p.ws. 1 to 3 had not only been cross-examined before and after charge but the defence had also been afforded sufficient opportunity to recall them for further cross-examination. If it lost that opportunity it is entirely due to its own negligence. Doubtless, cross-examination is one of the most important processes for elucidation of facts of a case and all reasonable latitude should be allowed, but the Judge has always a discretion as to how far it may go or how long it may continue. I feel, that the learned Magistrate has gone to the farthest limit and had allowed sufficient latitude to the defence and the defence cannot ask for more. 6. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate. The revision petition is dismissed.