Judgment AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sivesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, with the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. This application questions the validity of order, dated 8-8-1991 whereby the learned trial Court turned down the plea of the petitioner (accused before trial Court) to issue summons requiring one Shri Vishwanath Singh, retired Deputy Supdt. of Police (the D. S. P. hereinafter) to appear in the trial to be examined as a defence witness. The plea was based on the claim that the case investigated under the supervision of the D. S. P. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order in so far as it directs the defence to take Dasti summons from the Courts Office in respect of two private witnesses, remedy, (i) Md. Kurban (who is said to have been examined by the D. S. P.) and (ii) Md. Nayeem. The grievance is that the Court should have issued summons to the two witnesses directly and through its own process to ensure their attendance. 2. Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made an impassioned appeal that the refusal to summon the D. S. P. almost amounted to gagging the defence. According to him the examination of the D. S. P. is the only chance for the defence to bring to the notice of the trial Court the highly dissatisfactory manner in which the case was investigated in complete disregard of the instructions given by the supervising officer, the D. S. P. 3. Mr. Khan contends that the impugned order suffers from error of record on its face and submits that on its own reasoning the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer of the defence and should have summoned the D. S. P. to be examined in this case as a defence witness. 4. Mr. Mr. Khan contends that the impugned order suffers from error of record on its face and submits that on its own reasoning the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer of the defence and should have summoned the D. S. P. to be examined in this case as a defence witness. 4. Mr. Khan points out that the learned trial Court took note of the argument made by the A. P. P. that, "the evidence of D. S. P. Vishwanath Singh would have been material if defence would have drawn the attention of the prosecution witnesses towards their statements made before the said Deputy Supdt of Police." He further pointed out that the learned trial Court had accepted this plea of the prosecution as would appear from the following passage in the impugned order : "The examination of Sri Vishwanath Pd. Singh, Deputy Supdt. of Police would have been necessary in this case if the defence had drawn the attention of the prosecution witnesses towards their earlier statements made before the Dy. S. P. But there is nothing to show that the defence has drawn the attention of prosecution witnesses towards their statement made before the said Dy. S. P." 5. Mr. Khan contends that the second half of the passage quoted above that the defence had not drawn the attention of the prosecution witnesses towards their earlier statements made before the D. S. P. is an error of record and in support of his contention he read out to me para 29 from P.W. 3, para 16 from P.W. 4, para 33 from P.W. 9 and paras 34, 35, 36 and 37 from P.W. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid he submitted that the learned trial Court had apparently committed an error of record in assuming that the attention of the witnesses was not drawn to their earlier statements made before the D. S. P. That being the position, he submitted that the learned trial Court on its own reasoning should have allowed the prayer and ought to have summoned the D. S. P. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that this was not the sole reason for which the prayer made by the defence was turned down by the Court below. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that this was not the sole reason for which the prayer made by the defence was turned down by the Court below. The learned trial Court had noted that the D. S. P. was admittedly not an eye-witness of the occurrence. The statements of the witness allegedly taken down by him did not form part of the case diary ; nor was the supervision note part of the case diary as was produced in the Court. Last but not the least even the address of the D. S. P., who was now living in retirement, was not known to the Court and the frivolity of the defence plea was apparent from the fact that the accused in their petition had not even cared to furnish the current address of the D. S. P. Mr. Mishra pointed out that no summon could be issued to any person without an address. 7. I have closely gone through the orders of the trial Court passed on 8-8-1991 and on 23-8-1991 and I am of the opinion that the reasons given for turning down the prayer made by the defence are substantial and cannot be brushed aside lightly. 8. At this stage, however, 1 recall the oft quoted maxim, which though hackneyed by use still retains its usefulness, that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have be done. Relying upon this, I would rather stretch a point than allow the accused an occasion to cry out that he was not afforded a fair trial. In that view of the matter, I direct as follows : (1) The petitioner must furnish to the learned trial Court the correct present address of Shri Vishwanath Singh, retired D. S. P. by November 15, 1991. The address must be such on which the addresses may be searched directly and not through his previous employer, the police department or in the care of some other office. In case no such address is furnished by November 15, 1991, the following part of the order shall remain inoperative. The address must be such on which the addresses may be searched directly and not through his previous employer, the police department or in the care of some other office. In case no such address is furnished by November 15, 1991, the following part of the order shall remain inoperative. (2) In case, however, such a petition is filed before the trial Court furnishing the current address of the D. S. P. The Court will issue a summon to him fixing December 10, 1991 as the date for his appearance to be examined in this case as a defence witness. On the same date the Court shall direct that supervision note, if any, relating to the investigation of the case must also be produced before the Court by that date i.e. December 10, 1991 Non-production of the supervision note on any ground whatever shall not be an excuse for further adjournment of the case. In case of non-production of the supervision note, the defence may be heard at the time of argument of the case on this circumstance and the learned trial Court shall take the submissions into consideration for whatever it is worth. (3) In case Shri Vishwanath Singh appears in Court in response to the summon on December 10, 1991, he will be examined on that date as a defence witness, if he does not appear on that date, it shall be open to the Court to close the defence evidence without adjourning the case to any, other date for this purpose. (4) In respect of Md. Kurban and Md. Nayeem nothing further is required to be done by the Court save and except that if they present themselves on the next date, they may be examined as defence witness. 9. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed of.