R. J. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) WHILE deciding about the age of the prosecutrix it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has put reliance on certain documents which have been brought on record at the instance of the Court. There is an order at Exhibit 56 dated 9/08/1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Pursuant to the said order witness summons were issued to Bakul Primary Gujarati Shala Vadodara Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti Vadodara and Municipal Prathmik Shala No. 6 Ahmed- abad. Thereafter application Exhibit 57 was presented on behalf of the appellant and others to stay the proceedings to enable the appellant and others to go in revision against the said order. The same was granted and time was given upto 16-8-1982. At Exhibit 58 the appel- lant and others had preferred another application praying that the aforesaid order dated 9-8-1982 be set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has disallowed the said application as per his order dated 20/08/1982. Thereafter in answer to the witness summons documents had been produced and the same have also been taken on record for the reasons stated in the judgment. It is pertinent to note however that after the said documents were taken on record no oppor- tunity had been given to the accused to make any further statement in connection with those documents if they wanted to nor have they been asked as to whether the accused would like to lead any evidence in that connection. The judgment passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge shows that in deciding the case he has relied upon additional documents other than those on record. The learned advocate for the appellant has therefore contended that in the first place it was not open to the learned Additional City Sessions Judge to pass such an order under sec. 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) SEC. The learned advocate for the appellant has therefore contended that in the first place it was not open to the learned Additional City Sessions Judge to pass such an order under sec. 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) SEC. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :-"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 recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. "the learned advocate for the appellant however has submitted that under sec. 311 a witness can be called It any stage of the proceedings to depose on oath without documents. But his submission is that a witness for production only cannot be summoned by virtue of sec. 311 Cr. P. C. In this connection the learned public prosecutor has drawn our attention to RAMANLAL MADHAVLAL KHARVA V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS (13 GLR 914 ). In this case it has been held by a single Judge of this Court that once the Court reaches a conclusion that the evidence of any particular witness neither examined by the prosecution nor examined by defence appears to the court essential to the just decision of the case the court in order to perform the paramount duty cast upon it namely to do justice between the parties must examine such a witness untrammelled and unfettered by any other provisions of the Criminal procedure Code. sec. 540 of the criminal Procedure Code may not be used to give one party unfair advantage over the other. But the court is constituted to discharge the paramount duty namely to do justice between the parties and if in performance of this duty the court in order to arrive at a just decision of the case considers it essential to summon and example any witness no other provisions of the Code can stand in the way of the court to summon and examine such a witness. In ultimate analysis every procedure is devised to advance course of justice and no procedural provision can stand in the way to retard justice. In ultimate analysis every procedure is devised to advance course of justice and no procedural provision can stand in the way to retard justice. Sec. 540 cannot be interpreted so as to whittle down the power which was wisely conferred upon the court. This was a decision in respect of sec. 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 The said sec. 540 however is in pari materia with sec. 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 It is pertinent to note however that in this case it has not been considered as to whether by exercising powers under the section in question it is open to the Court to summon a witness merely for production. ( 4 ) IN support of his submission the learned advocate for the appell- ant has not referred to any decided case. The words of sec. 311 do not show that such a witness cannot be examined. If the Court can summon any person to depose as a witness under sec. 311 Cr. P. C. it stands to reason that the Court can also summon a person as a wit- ness only to produce documentary evidence. It is possible that a person may be in possession of relevant and important documents who may not have any personal knowledge regarding the said documents. In such a case unless the documents are before the Court no evidence regar- ding the contents thereof can be led at all. It therefore seems to us that such a power is implied in the said sec. 311 Criminal P. C. It is true that such a witness at best can only produce documents but the same cannot be considered to have been brought on record unless the same are duly approved or judicial notice thereof can be taken. Therefore when such documents are produced by a witness before taking such documents on record the Court will have to consider whether judicial notice thereof can be taken and if not whether the same are duly proved before they are exhibited in the case. For the purpose of proving such documents the Court may further order to summon such witnesses who can prove such documents. But unless the one or the other is done the documents which are merely produced by a witness cannot be looked into and relied upon by the Court. For the purpose of proving such documents the Court may further order to summon such witnesses who can prove such documents. But unless the one or the other is done the documents which are merely produced by a witness cannot be looked into and relied upon by the Court. It such documents are duly brought on record and exhibited then an opportunity will also have to be given to the accused to explain or say whatever they want to in connection with those documents. Unless that is done the Court will not he justified in considering such documents while deciding the case. It therefore seems to us that in exercise of the powers under sec. 311 Criminal P. C. it is open to the Court to issue a witness summons merely for production of documents. We therefore feel that the Court was justified in passing the aforesaid order under sec. 311 Criminal P. C. ( 5 ) THE next question that arises is whether the Court was further justified in relying upon the said documents for a just decision of the case in the manner in which it is done. The learned advocate for the appellant has fairly submitted that all the documents produced pur- suant to the said order have been rightly exhibited in the case. His grievance however is that after the said documents had been taken on record no opportunity had been given to any of the accused to explain the said documents if they wanted to. No opportunity had also been given to them to the effect as to whether they would like to lead any evidence in that connection. The record bears out that after the said documents had been ordered to be taken on record and exhi- bited in the case no further statements of the accused had been recorded. It therefore seems that the grievance in this connection made by the learned advocate for the appellant is well-founded We would therefore have been inclined to furnish such an opportunity to the appellant even at this stage if we had thought that for a just decision of the case it was absolutely necessary to rely on the said documents. In the view we are taking of the matter we make it clear that we are not availing of any of those documents for basing our decision in the matter. In the view we are taking of the matter we make it clear that we are not availing of any of those documents for basing our decision in the matter. The said subsequently exhibited documents are at Exhibits 64 and 66 to 70. .