JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurda on 21-12-1989 in I. C. C. No. 2 of 1988 closing the prosecution case is under challenge in this application filed by the complainant under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short 'Cr. P. C.'). 2. On the complaint filed by the Petitioner, the aforementioned case was registered against the opposite party. The gist of the case of the complainant is that the accused-opposite party had sexual intercourse with the minor daughter of the Petitioner Nayana Dei on several occasions by deceitfully inducing her to believe that she is lawfully married to him. The further case of the Petitioner is that on 18-10-1987 at about 8 a.m. the opposite party without the knowledge of the Petitioner and also without the consent of the victim girl took her to Bankoi Hospital, terminated her pregnancy and thereafter kept' her in the house of one Kubera Champati. Subsequently the Petitioner recovered his daughter with the assistance of the local police at Bankoi. Though the matter was reported at the Bolgarh police station the police failed to take action on the report. Hence the Petitioner filed the complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate. 3. In the complaint petition seven witnesses including the victim girl, the Medical Officers Nayagarh Govt. Hospital and A.S.I. Bolgarh Police Station were cited in support of the allegation. After receipt of the complaint petition the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 368/493, I.P.C. and issued summons to the opposite party. After examination of the victim girl and the Petitioner he framed charge against the accused u/s 493, I.P.C. by order dated 16-5-1989. The accused (Opposite party) having denied his guilt is being tried of the said charge. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner in the revision petition is that the learned Magistrate erroneously, closed the prosecution case without taking appropriate steps for examination of the remaining witnesses cited by the Petitioner in the complaint even though the Petitioner had applied for grant of time to enable him to produce the witnesses for their examination. 5. Considering the nature of the grievance of the Petitioner I perused the records of the case received from the trial Court. It appears from the order sheet in the case that on 2-11-1989 P.Ws. 5. Considering the nature of the grievance of the Petitioner I perused the records of the case received from the trial Court. It appears from the order sheet in the case that on 2-11-1989 P.Ws. 1 and 2 who had been examined before framing of charge, were cross examined and discharged. On the petition filed by the Petitioner to examine the other witnesses time was granted till 30-11-1989. Thereafter on 30-11-1989 and on 14-12-1989 on the prayer of the Petitioner the case was adjourned to enable him to produce the witnesses. By order dated 14-12-1989 the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 25/- towards cost to the opposite party. Finally on. 21-12-1989 when the Petitioner again asked for time to produce his witnesses, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order rejecting, the prayer and closed, the prosecution case. 6. As the impugned order reveals the grounds that weighed with the learned Magistrate were that despite repeated adjournments the Petitioner bad not been able to produce his witnesses for examination and had not paid the cost awarded against him by the previous order. 7. The order sheets in the case reveals and the position is also admitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party before me that the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to summon the witnesses. He has also not held that the witnesses are not relevant for the Case or their examination is not necessary. It cannot be disputed that the offence alleged is serious and warrant procedure is to be followed in the trial. 8. This Court has stressed in several cases that in a warrant case once a charge is framed against the accused, it becomes the duty of the learned, Magistrate, to see, that justice is done in the matter and for that purpose wide powers are conferred on the Magistrate to clear any obstacle in the way of justice being done. A duty is cast on the Court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses by the processes provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a criminal trial, it is the duty of the Judge to find out whether the examination of any witness would be necessary in the interest of justice or not. He is bound to examine any witness whose evidence he finds to be essential for just decision of the case. In a criminal trial, it is the duty of the Judge to find out whether the examination of any witness would be necessary in the interest of justice or not. He is bound to examine any witness whose evidence he finds to be essential for just decision of the case. In this context the provisions of Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant. It vests wide power in the Court and indeed it casts a duty upon the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. It has to be borne in mind that in the interest of justice it is necessary that a guilty person should be convicted just as it is that an innocent person be acquitted. So the powers under the Section may be exercised for the benefit of either the prosecution or the defence and even where the prosecution thinks fit not to examine an important and material witness and gives him up, it is the duty of the Court to call him and examine him as a court-witness in the case. [See : Sri T. Krishna Rao v. Sri T.V. Satyanarayan, K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ; Bishnu Singh Routia v. The State, 24 (1958) C.L.T. 108; Raghunath Paramanik v. State, State of Orissa Vs. Sib Charan Singh, and 37 (1977) C.L.T. 77: 1970 (1) C.W.R. 135, Siba Prasad Maharana v. Bishnu Maharana and Anr.). 9. Testing the impugned order in the light of the principles laid down in the decided cases referred to above there is no manner of doubt that the learned Magistrate signally failed in his duty to take steps to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under the Code to summon the material witnesses whose examination is necessary for doing justice in the case. I am aware that after passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of the opposite party u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure For the sake of fair trial in the case and for the ends of justice it is necessary that he should apply his mind and take steps for examination of the witnesses whose examination is material and relevant in the case. 10. 10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 21-12-1989 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and he is directed to take appropriate steps for examination of the material witnesses and dispose of the case in accordance with law. The lower Court records be returned forthwith. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed