JUDGMENT : K.L. Issrani, J. - The present petition has been filed u/s 482, Cr PC for quashing the order dated 2-3-1994 passed in GR Case No. 663/1930 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur whereby, he has passed the order recalling four prosecution witnesses. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these witnesses cannot be recalled for filling up the lacunae by the prosecution. The prosecution did not take earlier steps to apply for recalling these witnesses earlier. At this stage they cannot be recalled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1981 Cri. L J NOC 3 (A.P. ) (N. Narayana Rao v. State of A.P.) AIR 1985 SC 1887 (Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.) and also AIR 1887 SC 98 (State of Assam v. Muhim Serkataki and Anr.). 3. Learned counsel in appearing for the informant makes submission that these witnesses are none else but named in the FIR. He places reliance on Pradeep Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa, and supports the order. 4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State also supports the arguments of the informant and places reliance on the language of Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also a decision of the apex Court reported in Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India and another, . 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Court to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined at any stage of the enquiry if his evidence is essential 'to the just decision of the case. I lay emphasis to the words to the just decision of the case'. This proposition for just decision of the case if the Court finds that the examination of any such witness is necessary, the Court is vested with powers to summon or recall the witness at any stage before the conclusion of the enquiry. 6. I lay emphasis to the words to the just decision of the case'. This proposition for just decision of the case if the Court finds that the examination of any such witness is necessary, the Court is vested with powers to summon or recall the witness at any stage before the conclusion of the enquiry. 6. The Apex Court in AIR 1963 SC 178(Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra) has held : "Chapter 21 of Cr PC does not restrict the powers of Criminal Court u/s 540, Section 540 Criminal PC and Section 165 Evidence Act, between the confer a wide discretion on the Court to Act as the exigencies of justice require. Section 540 is intended to be wide on the repeated use of the word 'any' throughout its length clearly indicates. The section is in two parts. XX XX XX The first is that the prosecution cannot be allowed to rebut the defence evidence unless the prisoner brings forward something suddenly and unexpectedly XX XX" There is. however, the other aspect, namely, of the power of the Court which is to be exercised to reach a just decision. Relying on a decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa this Court has held that Section 311 cofers a very wide power on the Court on summoning witnesses. However, the discretion is conferred to be exercised judicially. 7. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India and another the apex Court has held that power to summon any person as witness or to recall and re-examine him, can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding provided examination of such person is essential for first decision of the case. AIR 1987 SC 90 (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner because in that case even the evidence of police officer who was summoned as a witness, no interference was sought proper by the apex Court. 8. The order for summoning the witnesses is an interlocutory order and cannot be interfered with in revision petition. The present petition u/s 482, Cr PC in the garb of a revision petition cannot be entertained on the point. Without looking to that defect as held by the apex Court in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani Vs. 8. The order for summoning the witnesses is an interlocutory order and cannot be interfered with in revision petition. The present petition u/s 482, Cr PC in the garb of a revision petition cannot be entertained on the point. Without looking to that defect as held by the apex Court in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Chapter 21 of Cr PC does not restrict the powers of Criminal Court to recall or re-examine the witness and give a wide discretion to the Court in exigencies of the justice require. 9. Here this fact is not disputed by the petitioner that the name of these witnesses find place in the first information report. It is also not disputed that one of the witnesses Ashok Mohanty who is victim of the occurrence and is named in the FIR, it is only due to inadvertence or otherwise, their names do not find place in the charge sheet. Seeing that defect, learned APP applied to the Court for summoning these witnesses who are material to the incident for the just decision of the case. There can be no other example for the just decision of the case than the examination of these witnesses who are stated in the first information report. The accused cannot be said to be prejudiced or it would cause injustice to himself such petition is filed though at late stage but before conclusion of the trial. The petitioner accused will have an opportunity to cross-examing these witnesses. Moreover, what 1 find from the impugned order that the learned defence counsel also during his submission fairly admitted that if such type of procedure is adopted, the defence shall not be prejudiced. In view of the tact that the accused-petitioner will have to gat a chance to cross-examine these witnesses, so also, it cannot be said that he will in any way be prejudiced if these witnesses are summoned by the Court Even otherwise such type of order being an interlocutry order cannot be interfered with at this stage. As held in S.K. Mahajan and Etc. Vs. Municipality, which says that : "No right of revision vests in litigant. As held in S.K. Mahajan and Etc. Vs. Municipality, which says that : "No right of revision vests in litigant. Section 439 read with Section 435 merely conserves the discretionary powers of the High Court which are to be exercised by it ex-debito justitice to insure that the subordinate Courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or ignore the procedure established by law or do not otherwise abuse their powers." None of these ingredients are fulfilled in this case. No interference in the petition u/s 482, Cr PC is called for when the revision itself is barred. However, Section 482, Cr PC cannot be utilised for exercising the powers which are expressly barred by time. As such no interference in this revision is called for. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed