Judgment : ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge Pondicherry in Crl. M. P. No. 737 of 1994 in Special C. C. No. 2 of 1986, dated 20-8-1996. ( 2 ) THE said petition was filed by the State under Section 311, Cr. P. C. to summon one Nageswara Rao, former Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, yanam, as an additional witness. ( 3 ) THE charge against the accused petitioner is that he and one Nageswara rao being public servants, employed as Assistant Engineer, Karaikal and Junior engineer at Yanam respectively, during the period 1982-83 conspired, demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration form persons having dealings with the Electricity Department as consumers at Yanam and as a motive or award for showing favour to them in the exercise of their official functions. It is alleged that the petitioner herein received illegal gratification of Rs. 4,500/-from two customers and that Nageswara Rao received a sum of Rs. 3,368/-from another consumer and also a sum of rs. 1,000/- from one more consumer in favour of the petitioner herein. The further allegation in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy during the period 1982-83 is that the petitioner and Nageswara Rao demanded and accepted illegal gratification and thereby committed offences under sections 120-B, IPC, 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is further stated that at the time of framing of charges, the petitioner denied the offences while Nageswara Rao admitted the charges framed against him and as a result he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court for all the said charges and imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- each under the provisions mentioned above, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case against the petitioner/accused was ordered to be split up and tried separately. In pursuance of the above judgment, the accused/petitioner is facing trial in c. C. No. 2 of 1986. In the petition under Section 311, Cr. P. C. . the State has pleaded that the said Nageswara Rao was a material witness for the prosecution to speak about the demand and acceptance of the amounts from the consumers. In pursuance of the above judgment, the accused/petitioner is facing trial in c. C. No. 2 of 1986. In the petition under Section 311, Cr. P. C. . the State has pleaded that the said Nageswara Rao was a material witness for the prosecution to speak about the demand and acceptance of the amounts from the consumers. ( 4 ) THE said petition was mainly opposed on the ground that it was a very belated prayer by the prosecution as well as that the prosecution was trying to plug the loopholes in its case and consequently the accused was deprived of a proper defence to his case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first Information Report was registered on 31-8-1984, the final report was filed on 30-8-1985. The subject matter of the prosecution is about the incident which had taken place in 1982-83. On 21-7-1986, the second accused Nageswara Rao had pleaded guilty of the offences and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The trial commenced on 6-7-1988 and between 6-7-1988 and 27-1-1994. 22 witnesses were examined and the case was posted for evidence of the investigating officer on 28-7-1994, and a petition had been filed to summon the second accused. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court reported in T. Bhashyam vs. State by the Drugs Inspector. In the said judgment the Court has objected to the belated attempts on the part of the prosecution which amounted to filling up lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Reference has also been made to another judgment of this Court reported in Mahadevan vs. State. In the said judgment while dealing with section 540 (Old) Cr. P. C. it has been held that though undoubtedly, the magistrate had discretion to call for any witness at any time for the purpose, such discretion must be said to be wrongly exercised on the facts of the said case. The learned Judge further held that in order that injustice should not be done to an accused a Judge should not call a witness in the criminal trial after the case was closed. It is significant to note that in the present case, case has not been closed and the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. It is significant to note that in the present case, case has not been closed and the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also referred to a judgment of the rajasthan High Court reported in Balwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan. In the said judgment, it has been held that while exercising power under Section 311, cr. P. C. the Court is not to be guided by the fact that by not exercising power, case of prosecution or the accused would be damaged. What it has to see is whether it is essential to the just decision and it does not amount to lead to certain conviction or certain acquittal. On the facts of the case it was held that the prosecution witnesses could not be recalled after the final arguments were over by exercising power under Section 311, Cr. P. C. in order to obtain clarification from them. This is again a case which is not applicable to the present case having regard to the situation that in the present case the prosecution has not yet closed its side. ( 7 ) AS regards the delay in the prosecution a counter has been filed by the state. It is submitted thereunder that a final report was filed on 30-8-1985 and the examination of witnesses commenced only on 6-7-1988. Since the case was taken in Special C. C No. 4/85 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, pondicherry, from the date of filing of the charge-sheet upto 21-7-1986 some time was consumed for taking copies, to be furnished to the accused and also for framing of charges on 21-7-1986. The new Special C. C. No. 2/86 was given as against the petitioner and thereafter till the date of commencement of examination of witnesses on 6-7-1988 the case underwent for number of adjournments and mostly due to the fact that Court having been engaged in other cases and the Judge having been on leave and on some occasions the public Prosecutor not being able to be present in Court and also due to the advocates strike and vacation of the Courts. However, Examination of witnesses commenced from 6-7-1988 and a total number of 22 witnesses have been examined. However, Examination of witnesses commenced from 6-7-1988 and a total number of 22 witnesses have been examined. Delay was also due to the fact that the Presiding Officer not having power to conduct the cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption act and the witnesses have to be secured from Yanam and other places which are far away from Pondicherry. It is submitted by the State that examining the said Nageswara Rao as an additional witness will throw light on the conspiracy between himself and the petitioner in the matter of acceptance of illegal gratification and he will be a material witness for coming to a proper and just decision on the issues to be decided in the case. The evidence of the said nageswara Rao would help to place the Court in a better position to come to the correct conclusion on the issues involved in the case. According to the prosecution he is the best witness and should be examined in the interests of justice. ( 8 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has referred to the judgment reported in kandaswamy Gounder In re that after the co-accused had been separated, he did not continue to be a co-accused and he would be a competent witness even without a pardon tendered to him. When the application to split up the case was granted, the result was that the said witness was no more a co-accused and there was no illegality in accepting his evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor also refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of india and another. In dealing with the expression occurring under Section 540, cr. P. C. 1908, the Supreme Court has held that the meaning of the words "at any stage" "of any enquiry", have been held to spell out that the expression used in the section was in the widest possible terms and there was no limit in the discretion of the Court. It is further held that the second part of the section did not allow for any discretion but it was binding and would compel the Court to admit fresh evidence if the admission of fresh evidence was essential to the just decision of the case. It is further held that the second part of the section did not allow for any discretion but it was binding and would compel the Court to admit fresh evidence if the admission of fresh evidence was essential to the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court went further to hold the cardinal rule in the law of evidence is that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court to prove a fact or the points in issue. ( 9 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor had also sought to place reliance on the similar judgment reported in Jamatraj vs. State of Maharashtra and submitted that the examination of the said Nageswara Rao would throw a better light on the conspiracy itself. ( 10 ) IN passing the discretionary order which is sought to be revised, the learned Judge has taken into account that the intention of the C. B. I, was only to seek the truth the proposed witness was a co-accused alongwith the petitioner and it was a highly risky factor for the prosecution and when the prosecution was prepared to face the risk, there was no illegality in ordering summons to the said Nageswara Rao. The learned Judge has therefore, exercised his discretion on the basis of the facts of the case and has come to the conclusion in allowing the petition under Section 311, Cr. P. C. The decisions mainly relied on by the accused /petitioner are all cases where an attempt was made to re-open the case after the prosecution had closed its case and then there was specific finding that the prosecution was trying to fill up the loopholes. In this case there is no room for applying the said reasons and having regard to the facts relating to the case. There is nothing wrong in permitting the prosecution to examine the said nageswara Rao as a witness. In a criminal trial every endeavour should be made to bring all the facts before the Courts and in the interest of the petitioner himself there need not be any embargo on the prosecution adducing evidence which according to the prosecution would be relevant to consider all the facts necessary to be placed before the Court. Therefore, I am unable to see any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, this revision is dismissed. Crl. Therefore, I am unable to see any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, this revision is dismissed. Crl. M. P. No. 2996 of 1996 is also dismissed.