Judgment Amir Das, J. 1. This application in revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 6-2-1985 passed by Mr. Kedar Nath, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 1981 whereby he has allowed the prosecution to examine the witnesses in the protest petition filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah before taking cognizance. 2. The Arrah Town police registered a case upon a fardbeyan of Paras Nath Diwedi on 6-2-1976 against the petitioner and six others for the offences under Sections 302, 148 and other offences of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation the informant made a protest against the police and filed a protest petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah. The investigation was concluded and Final Form was submitted upon which cognizance was taken and the case was later on, committed to the Court of Session. While the case was in the Court of Mr. Kedar Nath, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution for examination of the witnesses named in the protest petition. The Court has kept the petition alive for consideration after completion of recording of the evidence of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet. Accordingly on 6-2-1985 the matter was again taken up. A rejoinder was also filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused. After hearing both the sides the impugned order was made. Hence the accused-petitioner Sriniwas Chaubey has come up before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the lawfulness of the order mainly on the ground that the witnesses named in the protest petition are not charge-sheeted witnesses. He has also argued that the reason for the examination as required under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been assigned by the learned trial Court. On the other hand, the counsel for the State supported the legality and correctness of the order and replied that the Court can examine any witnesses at any stage of the trial for the ends of justice. 4. Ex facie the case has been initiated upon a police report and not on a complaint petition. Thus he proceeded under Sections 226 to 235 of the Cr. 4. Ex facie the case has been initiated upon a police report and not on a complaint petition. Thus he proceeded under Sections 226 to 235 of the Cr. P. C. The provision contained under Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that on the date fixed for evidence the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Since sub-section (2) of Section 231, Cr. P. C. is not in question it need not be referred. This provision speaks in clear terms that the prosecution is bound to call all the witnesses to prove their acquaintance with the facts of the prosecution case. The name of the witnesses to be examined were already mentioned fn the protest petition. Therefore, they cannot be said to be a stranger for the case or the defence. 5. Not only this, the provision contained under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the trial Court to examine any witnesses, summon any witnesses for their cross-examination or re-examination for the ends of justice. Therefore, the discretion of the trial Court cannot be restricted merely on the ground that the witnesses have not been examined by any authority. What importance can be attached to the evidence of a witness examined for a long time after the occurrence shall be considered at the proper stage. 6. In view of the abovementioned reasons, I come to the conclusion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and therefore, requires no interference. However, the Trial Judge is directed to supply a fresh list of the name of the witnesses named in the protest petition well in advance prior to the recording of the appearance. 7. He is further directed to supply the statement of any of the witnesses if examined by the Police in course of investigation before recording of their evidence. 8. In the result, the application in revision is dismissed.