D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the order dated 2-12-1987 of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir in G. R. Case No. 440 of 1986. By the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after closure of the prosecution evidence asked the prosecution to prove certain documents and examine the Collector and the Handwriting Expert in the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is in revision. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the offence under Ss. 465/471, I. P. C. The allegation against the petitioner, as disclosed from the F. I. R. , is that he appeared in an interview for selection to one of the posts of Lecturer in the Bidyabhusan Sanskrit College, Bolangir, on the basis of an 'interview card' which was alleged to have been forged. This was suspected to be forged just before the file was put up before the collector who happened to be the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College for his approva1 and accordingly the matter being reported to the District Intelligency Bureau (for short the 'd. I. B. ). the inspector of the D. I. B, drew up the p1ain paper F. I. R. on 27-91986 and after investigation submitted charge-sheet. ( 3 ) IT seems from the case record that by the date of the impugned order four of the prosecution witnesses had been examined and the previous order dated 26-11-87 shows that the S. D. J. M. fixed the case to 2-12-87 for recording the statement of the accused. ( 4 ) ON 2-12-87, on examining the case record, the S. D. J. M. found that since it was a case of forgery and the specimen writing and the admitted writing of the Employment Officer having been sent to Rasulgarh for examination and opinion of the Expert and the report had not been received till then, and further, since the original information by the Collector to the Superintendent of Police under letter dated 15-9-86 had also not been proved and that important witnesses like the Collector and the investigating officer were not examined, the Magistrate in the interest of justice thought it proper to examine these witnesses and get the documents proved in the case. In the impugned order the learned S. D. J. M. has mentioned that he felt it necessary in the interest of justice to examine the Collector, the Investigating Officer and the Handwriting Expert and prove the documents as mentioned above and, therefore, passed the impugned order directing issue of summons to the above officers fixing the date to 2-1-88 for further evidence of the prosecution. ( 5 ) MR. A. K. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that examination of the prosecution witnesses after the passing of the order to record the statement of the accused under S. 313, Cr. P. C. amounted causing prejudice to the case of the accused by way of giving opportunity to the prosecution to fill up the lacunae in its case Mr. Nanda relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1951 Mad 707 : (52 Cri LJ 673), in re K. V. R. S. Mani and 1973 Cri LJ 1651, Smt. Santosh Kumari v. State. Mr. D. K, Misra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the learned S. D. J. M. did not lack jurisdiction to pass such an order nor there was any thing wrong in the order. The learned Additional Standing Counsel relied on a number of decisions reported in AIR 1968 SC 178 : (1968 Cri LJ 231), Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra; 1985 (2) OLR 529 : (1986cri LJ 231), Kripasindhu Pothal v. State of Orissa; 1986 (2) OLR 191, Davanidhi Behera v. State of Orissa and 1990 (2) OLR 310, Kanduri Barad v. Bhaskar Naik. ( 6 ) IT will be an idle exercise to go through all these decisions cited by both the counsel. The law on the point is well settled particularly in view of the case reported in Jamatraj Kewalji Gavani (supra) cited by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. In the case referred to above, their Lordships were dealing with a case under the Customs Act. The accused was found dealing with certain excise-duty-leviable articles. After the prosecution closed its case the statement of the accused in that case was recorded under S. 342 (the old Cr. P. C. ). It was thereafter the prosecution applied for examination of the Inspector of Customs, Bombay as a Court witness on the ground that it would serve the ends of justice. After the prosecution closed its case the statement of the accused in that case was recorded under S. 342 (the old Cr. P. C. ). It was thereafter the prosecution applied for examination of the Inspector of Customs, Bombay as a Court witness on the ground that it would serve the ends of justice. The Court held, S. 540 (at present S. 311 of the new Code) confers wide power on the Court to examine any witness as a Court witness. The court further held,"there is no limitation on the power of the Court arising from stage to which the trial may have reached, provided the Court is bona fide of the opinion that for the just decision of the case,the step must be taken" (vide para 10 of the judgment ). In another decision of this Court reported in the case of Krupasindhu Pothal (supra) the same question arose for consideration. In the case referred to above, the prosecution evidence was closed, accused statement recorded and the case was finally posted to a date for argument. At that stage the prosecution prayed for summoning the Investigating Officer for examination as a witness. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed the order summoning the Investigating Officer to give evidence. The same argument that the Court allowed the Investigating Officer with a view to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case was found unfavourable with the Court. The Court in the case referred to also relied on the decision reported in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani (supra) and held that this power is exercisable at any time. While observing that the power of the Magistrate to summon and examine the witness at any stage, the Court also gave a word of caution that this should be exercised only where the Court feels that the evidence is necessary to arrive at a just decision in the case and where the Court so feels, it is for the Court to summon and examine the witness. In another decision in the case of Dayanidhi Behera, 1986 (2) OLR 191 (supra) this Court while examining the powers of the Magistrate under S. 311, Cr. In another decision in the case of Dayanidhi Behera, 1986 (2) OLR 191 (supra) this Court while examining the powers of the Magistrate under S. 311, Cr. P. C. and S. 165 of the Evidence Act was of the opinion that the trial Court has power to allow such examination in matter of exigency provided it is satisfied that the evidence of these witnesses are necessary for just decision of the case. In yet another case of this court reported in 1990 (2) OLR 310 (supra) this court has gone a little further by casting a duty on the Magistrate to see that the witnesses are examined for just decision of the case and the court has to call and examine a witness as court witness even if prosecution does not produce him when it finds that the evidence of the witness has an important bearing on the case. ( 7 ) ON going through the case record and the nature of the prosecution case, I do not find the Magistrate has committed any error or any illegality in passing the impugned order inasmuch as in the case of forgery the document which is the subject matter of forgery has to be examined by the court for proper decision of the case. That apart,in the present case the prosecution though closed its evidence, the accused statement has not been recorded. Therefore,the question of prejudice to the petitioner does not arise at all. It is unfortunate, a case of this nature has been lying over almost for the last four years from the date of passing of the impugned order. ( 8 ) IN the result, there is no merit in the revision which is accordingly dismissed since the lower court order is confirmed. The trial court shall make all endeavour to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The lower court records be sent back forthwith. Revision dismissed. Revision dismissed.