ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against an order dated 11th of July, 1994. A prayer was made that P.W. Raju be recalled for the purposes of further cores-examination. This prayer was made in terms of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This has been declined on the ground that the prayer so made is belated. 2. Section 311 of the Code of 1973 consists of two parts; one giving a discretionary power to the Court and the other imposing an obligation on it. (i) the first part of the section gives the discretionary power under which the Court may - (a) summon any person as a witness, or (b) examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or (ii) the second part of the section imposes an obligation on the Court to summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 3. Power to summon any person as witness or to recall or re-examine him can be exercised at any stage of proceedings provided examination is essential for just decision of the case. Opportunity, however, should be given to other party whenever new evidence is admitted. 4. The court is not precluded from exercising its discretion merely because.- (i) somebody asks it to do so; and (ii) the name of witness is not mentioned in the list of witnesses given by the police in the charge-sheet. 5. Mere delay on the part of the accused to apply for getting the witness cross-examined by his counsel by itself does not justify denying the right to the accused to get the witnesses cross-examined by his counsel, particularly when the statements of all the prosecution witnesses had not till then concluded and witness is the most material witness. The powers under this section can and ought to be exercised, particularly in murder cases when the Court considers that the interest of justice requires that certain witnesses who have been deliberately withheld by (he prosecution should be examined. See : Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another, AIR 1991 SC 1346 ; and Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178 and; Darya Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 . 6. See : Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another, AIR 1991 SC 1346 ; and Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178 and; Darya Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 . 6. It be seen that section 311 of the Code of 1973 makes reference to the words "any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. It also makes a reference to an inquiry or trial comes to an end when the judgment or order is pronounced and until then the Court has power to act under this Section. Thus, a fresh witness can be summoned and examined even where the evidence on both sides is closed and the case is posted for judgment. Therefore, mere delay should not have weighed with the Court below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 7. Apart from the above, the order passed by the Court below does not indicate any other reason. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 11th of July, 1994 is set aside. A direction is given to the Court below to reconsider the matter and pass a detailed reasoned order while deciding the question as to whether Raju, P.W. is to be permitted to be recalled or not. The records of the Court below be sent back forthwith. Disposed of accordingly.