T. S. DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel. "counsel seek only for the their clients' success, but the Judge must watch that justice triumphs. " The above observations made by Lumpkin, J. in the case of Epps v. State were noted by brother Dipak Misra, J. in the case reported as Heeralal v. State of M. P. , 1997 (1) Jab LJ 290. The issue involved in the above case was vis-a-vis the power of the Court to summon a witness to appear in the Court in terms of the provisions contained in S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief in this case are as under : It is not disputed that the prosecution in the list of witnesses has named two witnesses. These are : (1) Chatur Singh son of Mannu Singh Kamria and (2) Gajraj Singh son of Mannu Singh Kamria. These witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. The accused moved an application and prayed that these two witnesses be treated as 'court Witnesses'. This petition has been allowed. It is against the above order, the present petition has been filed. ( 3 ) THE provisions of S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C.) are contained in two parts. These are : (i) (a) The first part of the Section gives the discretionary power under which the Court may - (1) summon any person as a witness, or (2) examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or (3) recall and re-examine any person already examined; (ii) (b) 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. ( 4 ) IT cannot be disputed that the power to summon any person as witness can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings provided the examination of that person is essential for just decision of the case. ( 5 ) THE only consideration which should weigh with the Court is to see that justice is done. The consideration that something would be in the interest of the accused only or something which is likely to benefit the prosecution is totally an alien the consideration. ( 5 ) THE only consideration which should weigh with the Court is to see that justice is done. The consideration that something would be in the interest of the accused only or something which is likely to benefit the prosecution is totally an alien the consideration. If the Court feels that certain evidence is available or can reasonably be made available and the same would be essential to a just decision of the case, whether in favour of the prosecution or the defence, the Court is not supposed to fold its hands and to bang the prosecution or to hang the defence simply because they or any of them did not take reasonable steps to bring such evidence on record. Such was the view expressed by a Division Bench of the Sikkim High Court in the case reported as State of Sikkim v. Pemba Sherpa, 1981 Cri LJ 856. ( 6 ) THUS the paramount consideration before the Court is that it must see that justice is done between the parties. ( 7 ) THE direct authority on the subject would be found in the case reported as In re Venugopal Mudaliar, AIR 1952 Madras 509. A witness was given up by the prosecution. The question arose as to whether the Court can examine such a person as a "court witness". It was observed by the Madras High Court that it is the duty of the Court to call him and examine such a witness as "court Witness". This can be done at any stage of the proceedings. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, still in a latter decision in the case reported as Rangaswami Naicker v. Muruga Naicken, AIR 1954 Madras 169 : (1954 Cri LJ 123), it was observed that the only rule which the Court must bear in mind when examining Court witnesses are; (i) that, the prosecution and the accused are both equally entitled to cross-examine a Court witness, and (ii) that, if the evidence of the Court witness is prejudicial to the accused, opportunity to rebut the evidence should be given to the accused. ( 9 ) IT would not be an improper exercise of the power of the Court if merely because the evidence taken supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. See Narayan Nambiar v. Emperor, AIR 1942 Mad 223 : (1942) 43 Cri LJ 557. ( 9 ) IT would not be an improper exercise of the power of the Court if merely because the evidence taken supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. See Narayan Nambiar v. Emperor, AIR 1942 Mad 223 : (1942) 43 Cri LJ 557. ( 10 ) AGAIN, a just decision does not mean a decision in favour of the defence. See Kesave Pillai v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Mad 837 : (1930)31 Cri LJ 768. ( 11 ) IN the present case, as indicated above, two of the witnesses, namely; (1) Chatur Singh son of Mannu Singh Kamria and (2) Gajraj Singh son of Mannu Singh Kamria were cited as prosecution witnesses. The were not produced by the prosecution. The accused gave an application for examining them as Court witnesses. That prayer of the accused has been allowed by the Court below in the interest of justice. ( 12 ) I am of the opinion, that both the parties would be at liberty to cross examine the witnesses and the requisite safeguards contemplated by law are available to both the sides. The discretion exercised by the Court below in the interest of justice cannot be said to be such which calls for any interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly found to be without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .