JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. In the course of their trial for offence under sections 302, 149IPC the petitioners requested the trial court to direct the prosecution to deliver the copies of the statements of such witnesses, who were neither cited as prosecution witnesses in the list of witnesses, submitted along with the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. nor were their statements, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. relied upon by the prosecution. The learned lower court declined to order the supply of the copies of such statements to the petitioners on the ground that the prosecution had not relied upon the statements of those witnesses. 3. It was submitted that the charge, framed against the petitioners, was quite serious and, therefore, to enable them to defend them properly it was in the interest of justice that the copies of the statements of such witnesses who were though examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer yet they were not cited as prosecution witnesses in the list of the witnesses should be supplied to them. The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, submitted that since the prosecution had not relied upon the statements o f the witnesses named in their application dated 10.7.1997 by the petitioners, the prosecution was not obliged to either submit the statements of those witnesses along with the report u /s. 173 Cr.P.C. or to supply the copies thereof to the petitioners u /s. 207 Cr.P.C. 4. It is true that the prosecution is required to supply such documents and the copies of the statements of such witnesses as are relied upon by them against the accused at the trial. But it is always open to the court to look into such other evidence, available on the case diary, which may help it in deciding the case justly. Therefore, the court can always recall, summon or re-summon a witness, who has either been examined by the prosecution or not examined or even not cited as their witness, by exercising its power u /s. 311 Cr. P.C. when it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Therefore, the court can always recall, summon or re-summon a witness, who has either been examined by the prosecution or not examined or even not cited as their witness, by exercising its power u /s. 311 Cr. P.C. when it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Therefore, before dismissing the application of the petitioners, the learned trial Court must have examined the statements of such witnesses, who were though examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. in the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer yet their statements were not relied upon by prosecution at the trial of the accused. 5. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the learned trial court is directed to first examine the statements of all those witnesses, namely Badri Nath, Sukhveer Singh, Kalu Fakir, Amer Singh, Sant Lal, Sant Lal S/o Mela Ram, Sudarshan Kumar, Madan La, Shiv La I, Mangi Lal, Bilk, Muni r Khan, Chunni Lal, Lekh Raj, Shanu Ram, recorded by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation and satisfy himself whether the statements of those witnesses are relevant to the issue before him and are material for just decision of the case. If he is of the opinion that the statements of those or any of the above named witnesses is relevant and material for just decision of the case before him, he would direct the prosecution to submit the copies of the statements of such witnesses, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., and then supply the same to the petitioners.The present petition is disposed of in the manner stated above.Petition disposed of. *******