JUDGMENT 1. - By this order two revision petitions will be disposed of. Petition No. 281/97 is submitted by Smt. Sugani Devi complainant while petition No. 360/97 is submitted by State of Rajasthan. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned P.P. and perused the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In Sessions Case No. 17/96 State v. Licchma & Ors. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur closed the evidence of prosecution because Shahib Ram, SHO was not appearing. Thereafter, the prosecution submitted an application on 20.6.1997 under section 311, Cr.P.C. since he was a material witness. The same was also dismissed. It has been urged before me that Shahib Ram is one of the material witnesses of the case because he prepared the Inquest Report under section 174, Cr.P.C. and recoveries of the weapons were made by him. According to them since witness is material and his examination is necessary for the just decision of the case. Therefore, it has been prayed that the witness may be summoned and examined under section 311, Cr.P.C. 3. Reliance has been placed on Rikhab Chand v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1991 (1) page 305 wherein it was held that when the trial Court did not consider whether the evidence wanted to be produced was essential for the just decision of the case last opportunity was given to produce the witness. 4. I am of the view that since the Investigating Officer in this case is a very material witness and opportunity should be given to the prosecution to produce him before trial Court. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case the petition is allowed and the prosecution is directed to produce the witness Shahib Ram before the trial Court within a period of two months from today on the date fixed by the trial Court.With these observations the petition is hereby allowed.Petition allowed. *******