Judgment NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. The informant petitioner has filed the present application challenging the order; dated 19-9-89/20-9-89 passed by Judirial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Patna City in Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 263 of 1985 by which he has recalled some of the prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination at the instance of the accused persons after they were discharged. 2. The petitioner lodged first information report before Sultanganj Police against accused opposite party for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of which Sultanganj Police Station Case No. 263/85 was registered against opposite party and police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. The Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City took cognizance for the offences on 10-1-1986 and thereafter the case was transferred for trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 3. During trial 6 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and after their cross-examination they were discharged. On 6-2-1989 accused persons filed 2 petitions one for the recall of P.W. 5 Dr. Ghulam Rasool and the other for recall of other prosecution witnessess for their cross-examination. The Trial Court allowed the applications of the accused persons and against that order the petitioner came to this Honble High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 4841 of 1989 and this Court finally disposed of the said application on 21-8-89 and set aside the aforesaid order on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not given any finding that the recall of the aforesaid witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case. It was also observed by this Court that if the Trial Court finds that the recall of the prosecution witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case, he may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 4. The accused opposite party again filed a petition for recall of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that their cross-examination was essential for the just decision of the case and the learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing the parties and going through the records of the case came to the conclusion that it was necessary to recall the witnesses for the just decision of the case and passed the impugned order allowing the prayer of the accused opposite party. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in exercise of the power under Section 311 of the Code of Cirminal Procedure learned Magistrate has no power to recall witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination and that learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason for passing the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers Trial Court to pass an order to recall witnesses if the same is necessary for the just decision of the case. In this case learned Magistrate after considering the material on the record has passed the aforesaid order and this Court in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 should not interfere with the said order specially that the order does not suffer from any legal defect. 6. After hearing the counsel for the. parties and going through the records, in my opinion, two questions arise for consideration of this case. The first question is whether the Court in exercise of the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can recall the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination and the second question is as to whether this Court will interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court in exercise of the power under Section 3ll of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Coming to the first point learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the word recall and re-examination has been mentioned in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the witnesses can be re-called by the Court for the purpose of re-examination and not for the purpose of cross-examinations I am unable to interpret the section in the manner as submitted by the counsel for the petioner. From the bare reading of the aforesaid section it is evident that the same has been enacted with the object of conferring power on the Trial Court to summon material witnesses or to examine the witnesses already examined, if their examination is necessary for the just decision of the case. The said section is in two parts. From the bare reading of the aforesaid section it is evident that the same has been enacted with the object of conferring power on the Trial Court to summon material witnesses or to examine the witnesses already examined, if their examination is necessary for the just decision of the case. The said section is in two parts. The first part provides that the Court may at any stage of the enquiry, trial or other proceeding summon any person as an witness or re-call or re-examine any witness already examined and the second part provides that Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The section gives wide power to the Court to examine any witness even aliready examined. The section confers power on the Court to re-call the witness even for the purpose of further cross-examination. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, 8. Coming to the second point, the learned Magistrate after going through the relevant materials has come to the conclusion that the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses was essential to the just decision of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not pointed out any legal defect in the order. In my view the prosecution is not being prejudiced in any way by the aforesaid order and the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to pass the said order and he has exercised the jurisdiction in favour of the accused opposite party and this Court will not interfere with the aforesaid order even if a different view of the matter can be taken on the appreciation of the evidence and record. Accordingly, the second point is also without any substance. 9. In the result the application is dismissed.