Order.-Mr. Surya Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that complainant examined four witnesses including himself and the cross-examination of those witnesses was deferred by the accused till the charge was framed and after the charge was framed, the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 were recalled and cross -examined by the accused and re-examined and the learned Magistrate passed an order on 23rd September, 1976 stating that the prosecution evidence was closed and the east; is posted to 29th September, 1976 for examination of the accused. But on 29th September, 1976, the complainant filed a petition to permit him to examine an additional witness (P.W.5) who was not examined before the charge was framed. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition and proceeded to examine him in chief. As the junior counsel did not expect this development, and did not find himself able to cross -examine the additional witness without preparation and as his senior was not available in the Court and hence he could not proceed to cross-examine the additional witness (P.W. 5,) he filed a petition to adjourn the case to another day for the purpose of cross-examination of the additional witness. But the learned Magistrate dismissed that petition, closed the prosecution evidence and he posted the case to 6th October, 1976 for examination of the accused. On 6th October, 1976 the counsel for the accused filed a petition to recall P.W. 5 the additional witness for purpose of cross-examination. But the learned Magistrate refused permission to the counsel for the accused to cross-examine P.W. 5 and consequently dismissed the petition. 2. Mr. Surya Rao, therefore, contends that the learned Magistrate committed error of law in not granting permission to the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the additional witness and the accused has right to cross-examine the additional witness who was examined unexpectedly and by denying the accused the right to cross-examine P.W. 5 prejudice is caused to the interests of the accused. He also contends that had P.W. 5 been examined before the charge was framed, the accused could have right to cross-examine him along with P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the accused is entitled to have the same right to cross-examine the witness even when he was examined as additional witness after the charge was framed and such a right, in fact, was given to the accused under section 246 (6). 1 to 4 and the accused is entitled to have the same right to cross-examine the witness even when he was examined as additional witness after the charge was framed and such a right, in fact, was given to the accused under section 246 (6). The learned counsel therefore, contends that the order of the Magistrate in refusing the permission to cross-examine the witness and consequently dismissing the petition Criminal Miscelleneous Petition No. 262 of 1976 amounts to abuse of process and hence this Court should exercise its inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and secure ends of justice. 3. Sri D. Mohan Rao counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, contends that this petition is not maintainable. According to him,the petition filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate is only an interlocutory application and it was dismissed by the Magistrate and under section 397 (2),Criminal Procedure Code, revision is barred against such an interlocutory order. He also contends that when the petitioner failed to obtain a relief in the interlocutory application they are not entitled to resort to section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. It is well-settled that section 397 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, debars a revision against an order in an interlocutory applic?.tion passed by the Magistrate. But where the impugned order results in miscarriage of justice, if not interfered with,this Court is certainly empowered to set aside such an unjust order by exercising its inherent powers conferred on it under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and prevent miscarriage of justice. If this Court, even after being convinced that the impugned order is manifestly unjust and apparently illegal declines to set aside it by exercising its powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code on the mere ground that the impugned order is only interlocutory order then there will be perpetuation of miscarriage of justice and as such the very intention of the legislature in providing section 482, in the Code becomes defeated and the lower Courts will develop a very callous attitude in passing interlocutory orders with the view that their orders will become final and will not be interfered with and thus there will be abuse of section 397,Criminal Procedure Code. 5. 5. In the case on hand, it is clear from the facts mentioned above that the prosecution witnesses Were not cross-examined before the charge was framed and after the charge was framed they were recalled and were cross-examined and thereafter the case was posted to 29th September, 1976 for examination of the accused. In such a case, it is naturally expected that the Court would examine the accused and the accused would not expect that prosecution would examine any additional witness and hence the senior counsel for the accused sent his junior to attend the Court. But to the surprise of the accused and to the dismay of the junior counsel, the complainant filed a petition for examination of additional witness who was not examined before the charge was framed. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition. The witness was examined in chief. As the senior counsel did not attend the Court on that day and as the junior counsel found himself unable to cross-examine the witness he filed a petition praying for adjournment of the case to another day so as to enable his senior to cross-examine the additional witness. But the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition, closed prosecution evidence and posted the case to 6th October, 1976 for examination of the accused. On 6th October, 1976 the senior counsel for the accused filed a petition for recalling the additional witness for the purpose of cross-examination. But the learned Magistrate refused to recall the witness and to permit him to cross examine him and finally dismissed the petition. 6. Section 246 (4), Criminal Procedure Code, provides that when the prosecution witnesses are examined, the Magistrate should ascertain from the accused whether they require any witnesses to be recalled for the purpose of cross-examination. Section 246 (5) provides that if the accused gives the names of the witnesses, the Magistrate is bound to recall those witnesses named by the accused and after cross-examination and re-examination, they will be discharged. Section 246 (6), Criminal Procedure Code, provides for evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution to be taken, next and after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged. 7. Section 246 (6), Criminal Procedure Code, provides for evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution to be taken, next and after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged. 7. A careful examination of section 246 (4) (5) and (6) makes it amply clear that section 246 (4) gives the right to the accused to give the names of those witnesses whom he desires to cross-examine after the charge is framed. Section 246 (5) enjoins the Magistrate to summon those witnesses and permit the accused to cross-examine them. Section 246 (6) gives the right to the prosecution to examine any witness mentioned in the list, but not examined before the charge or any additional witnesses whom the prosecution proposes to examine afresh and casts duty on the Magistrate to permit the accused to cross-examine such additional witness and the accused is therefore given right to cross-examine the additional witness who is examined and as such the Magistrate cannot refuse permission to the accused to cross-examine the additional witness proposed to be examined by the prosecution. This section thus calls upon the Magistrate not to discharge the additional witness till his cross-examination and reexamination are completed. Had P.W. 5 been examined along with P.Ws. 1 to 4, the accused could have certainly demanded the Court, as of right to recall him for the purpose of cross-examination and the accused could have been given the right to cross-examine that witness also. The same right is given to the accused under section 246 (6) in respect of additional witness. The right given to the accused under section 246 (6) to cross-examine the additional witness is similar to the right envisaged to the accused under section 246 (5) and hence section 246 (6) requires the Magistrate not to discharge the additional witness unless and until the additional witness is cross-examined and re-examined. 8. When the learned Magistrate felt it necessary to examine the additional witness in the interests of justice, the same considerations ought to have weighed even for recalling P.W. 5 to facilitate the accused to cross-examine him in the interests of justice. The Divisional Bench of Bombay High Court also took the same view in Emperor v Nagindas1, that section 256 (old) clearly enables the Crown to examine witnesses who had not been examined or whose names had not been disclosed before the charge was framed. The Divisional Bench of Bombay High Court also took the same view in Emperor v Nagindas1, that section 256 (old) clearly enables the Crown to examine witnesses who had not been examined or whose names had not been disclosed before the charge was framed. If the accused desires time to enable him to cross-examine witnesses whose names had not been disclosed, it is open to the Magistrate to give time. Keeping in view of the provisions of section 246 (6), Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the petition Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 962 of 1976 filed by the accused on 6th October. 1976 to facilitate the accused to cross-examine the witness who, to the surprise of the accused was examined on the previous date 9. It is, therefore, clear that when the Magistrate dismissed the petition for recalling the additional witness for the purpose of cross-examination, it virtually amounts to the denial of the right given under section 246 (6) to the accused to cross-examine the additional witness and such a denial would undoubtedly lead to miscarriage of justice and hence the petitioners are entitled to invoke the benefit of the provisions of section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. 10. In the circumstances narrated above, it is absolutely necessary that this Court should exercise the inherent power given to it under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to recall the witness for purpose of cross-examining the additional witness P.W. 5. For securing ends of justice in the case of this nature, the benefit of section 482, Criminal Procedure Code should be invoked by this Court. Otherwise miscarriage of justice would be perpetuated. Merely because section 397 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, bars a revision against an order in an interlocutory application it cannot be said that section 482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked even to prevent miscarriage of justice. Hence I find no difficulty to hold that the contentions of Sri Mohan Rao that the petition is not maintainable are devoid of merits. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 962 of 1976 is unsustainable and it is accordingly quashed. Hence I find no difficulty to hold that the contentions of Sri Mohan Rao that the petition is not maintainable are devoid of merits. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 962 of 1976 is unsustainable and it is accordingly quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to recall the additional witness, P.W. 5, and permit the accused to cross-examine him. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed.