JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for the offence under section 409 IPC. When some of the prosecution witnesses already examined and the statement of Shri B.L. Baweja, prosecution witness, was being recorded on 5-1-1972, a document containing the statement of the accused Ex. P. 26 was produced by the prosecution. As it was produced at a very late stage, on objection was taken on behalf of the petitioner for not taking it into evidence. That prayer was, however, rejected. A subsequent prayer was made by the petitioner that as Mr. B. D. Thapar PW 1 and Shri Raghuvir Singh PW 8 were already examined on behalf of the prosecution before the production of Ex. P. 26, these witnesses as well as Shri B. L. Baweja PW 9 be re-called for further examination. That prayer also was however rejected by the trial court by its order dated 20-11-1973. 2. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition has been presented, Here, before me, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as Shri B. D. Thapar PW 1 and PW 8 Raghuvir Singh were already examined before the production of Ex. P. 26, these witnesses would have been re-called for further cross-examination as the accused wanted to cross-examine them in regard to matters contained in Ex. P. 26. He has however not pressed for re-summoning Shri B. L. Baweja PW 9. 3. The learned trial court in its order has observed that in its opinion there is no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure entitling the accused to further cross-examine during session trial. His attention was drawn to the provisions of section 540 Cr. P. C., 1898 (which was then applicable) but the learned Judge observed that as these witnesses were already examined, their further examination does not seem to him essential either in the interest of justice for the just decision of the case. 4. Provisions of section 540 Cr. His attention was drawn to the provisions of section 540 Cr. P. C., 1898 (which was then applicable) but the learned Judge observed that as these witnesses were already examined, their further examination does not seem to him essential either in the interest of justice for the just decision of the case. 4. Provisions of section 540 Cr. P. C. provided that any court may at any stage of any inquiry, 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 re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 5. From the perusal of this section, it can be said that this section deals with two aspects ; the first aspect of it gives a discretion to the court to examine any person as witness in attendance though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any witness already examined. It does not lay any conditions which should first be satisfied in order to enable the Court to pass an order for re-calling the witness or re-examining him. It is purely a matter of discretion in the interest of justice if it feels either suo moto or at the request of the party that a witness already examined may be re-called and re-examined or not. The second part of this section makes a mandatory provision which gives no discretion to the Court but to summon and examine or re-call or re-examine any person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. It seems the learned trial Judge has given its attention to the second part of the provisions of the section. But as pointed out above, even if the provisions of second part are not satisfied by the accused, nonetheless, the trial Judge has the discretion to re-call and re-examine the witness, looking to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case this position is not disputed by the learned P.P. In the present case as the document Ex. In the present case this position is not disputed by the learned P.P. In the present case as the document Ex. P. 26 was produced at a very late stage after the examination of PW 1 Shri Thapar and PW 8 Raghuvir Singh and the accused prayed that he had made certain statements before these witnesses also to clarify his statement. Had this document Ex. P. 26 produced at the earlier stage, he would have had an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses on the facts mentioned in (his document as also. As the accused has been denied that right in the interest of fair play and justice he should be given the opportunity of re-calling these witnesses. Looking to these circumstances, I think it proper and desirable that the accused should be given, an opportunity to cross-examine PW 1 Shri Thapar and PW 8 Shri Raghuvir Singh. With these observation the trial court will accordingly re-call these witnesses for the purpose.The revision petition is, therefore, allowed as stated above. *******