Judgment This is a revision petition against an order of acquittal. The petitioner in this case was one of the accused in C.C.No. 30 of 1977 on the file of the Sessions Court of Tiruchirapalli. In that case the petitioner herein along with three others have been convicted for an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. In that case, the medical certificates pertaining to injuries sustained by five of the petitioners have been filed and marked. In this counter-case for an offence under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 426 and 511, I.P.C., there are seventeen accused. All of them have been acquitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, No.I, Tiruchirapalli by judgment, dated 4th February, 1982. The complainant who is A3 in the other case, has filed this revision petition. His main ground of revision is that the trial Court has acquitted the accused mainly for the reason that there was no medical evidence in respect of injuries sustained by the complainant and that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused, since there is ample power for the Court to call for the records and since the Court has to see that the ends of justice are met. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 17 would contend that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court and that therefore the order of acquittal should not be disturbed. 3. No doubt, the powers of this Court in a revision petition against the order of acquittal are limited. The Supreme Court, which had occasion to deal with the power of this Court in such a contingency, in two important decisions reported in CHINNASWAMY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1788 and AKULU AHIR v. RAMADEO RAM, 1974 M.L.J.(Crl.) 168: 1975 L.W.(Crl.) 235, has delineated those powers and has laid down that whenever there is a failure of justice, this Court should interfere and not otherwise. The Supreme Court has also in the first of the decision mentioned above, listed by way of illustration, some cases in which this Court should interferes and that list is not exhaustive. 4. The Supreme Court has also in the first of the decision mentioned above, listed by way of illustration, some cases in which this Court should interferes and that list is not exhaustive. 4. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows clearly that the trial Court was led to acquit the accused mainly for the absence of medical evidence, corroborating the evidence of the eye witnesses and that of the victims regarding the overt-acts and the hurts. Full medical evidence could have been obtained in this case. Three wound certificates, viz., Exs.P11, P12 and P13, have been marked; two other wound certificates, which have been issued have been marked in Sessions Case No.30 of 1977; they could have been summoned and it was not reported that the doctors who issued these medical certificates were not available for examination. I fail to understand why the prosecution, after having launched the case, has failed to produced the additional medical evidence necessary for the proper appreciation of the evidence and just conclusion on the points at issue in the case. 5. But the criminal Court is not just an umpire who deals with only the materials brought by the parties before it. The Court has to play an active role in the administration of criminal Justice. Though it is not the normal duty of the Court to collect evidence, in cases where justice requires it, the Court has ample power to further enquire into the matter in order to ascertain the truth. Sec.311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in addition to the other provisions, which are found in the Code, specifically empowers the Court to that effect. Therefore, when it was found that medical evidence was essential to decide the case and when it was known that such evidence was readily available (the wound certificates being filed in the other cases and doctors being not out of reach), the Court should have taken steps for recording the additional evidence in that respect, instead of closing the case merely for the absence of such an evidence. The Court has proceeded as if its role was merely to see whether the prosecution has proved its case, whereas its role is to take such evidence as is essential as stated in Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to arrive at a just decision of the case. The Court has proceeded as if its role was merely to see whether the prosecution has proved its case, whereas its role is to take such evidence as is essential as stated in Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to arrive at a just decision of the case. I, therefore, find that the Court below has failed in its duty in the present case in not taking steps for getting additional evidence under Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that failure of justice has occurred on that account. 6. In the result, the. revision petition is allowed, the finding of the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to call for the medical evidence and dispose of the case afresh as per law. The prosecution will not be allowed to add any other evidence.