Order.- This is a reference made under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in Criminal Application No. 4 of 1958 on his file for orders of this Court. The circumstances that led to the reference briefly narrated are as follows: The first respondent Babasaheb Syadsaheb Shetsanadhi filed a complaint against respondents 2 to 4 for offences under sections 426 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Dharwar, in Criminal Case No. 499 of 1957. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the two witnesses cited in the complaint petition and framed charges against respondents 2 to 4 under sections 426 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and examined the accused. He subsequently permitted the accused to cross-examine the two witnesses who had been examined prior to the charge. On that day the complainant made an application requesting the learned Magistrate to summon the three more additional witnesses and examine them on his behalf. Respondents 2 to 4 objected to the examination of those witnesses. They stated that those witnesses could not be examined since their names had not appeared in the complaint petition. The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the first respondent for summoning the three witnesses. But the learned Magistrate felt that it was necessary in the interest of justice that one of those witnesses summoned to produce some documents should be examined in the case and therefore, directed the said witness to be summoned and examined under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting his application to summon the two witnesses named by him in his application, the first respondent preferred a revision application to the Sessions Judge, Dharwar. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that so long as respondents 2 to 4 (accused in the case) had not entered upon their defence it is incumbent on the part of the learned Magistrate to examine these witnesses named by the first respondent and that the order passed by him rejecting the application to summon the witnesses was irregular and has, therefore, made this reference to quash the order passed by the learned Magistrate and direct him to examine the two witnesses cited by the first respondent. The opinion of the learned Magistrate that the words "any remaining witnesses" in section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not refer to the witnesses, who had not been cited by the complainant in his complaint petition is not correct. The "words, in my opinion, are wide enough to include any witness who according to the first respondent is able to give evidence in support of his case. It is no doubt true that the first respondent had not given the names of those two witnesses in the list of witnesses cited by him in his complaint petition but the fact remains that the accused had not been called upon to enter their defence and therefore, no injury or prejudice was likely to be caused to respondents 2 to 4 if the witnesses named by the first respondent in his application filed on 6th February, 1958, were summoned and examined in the case. It was not a case wherein the first respondent was likely to spring a surprise upon the defence all of a sudden. Respondents 2 to 4 had every opportunity to prepare for the cross-examination of these witnesses. The order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application on the ground that the first respondent was not entitled to summon and examine any witness that he had not cited in his complaint or included in the list filed by him under section 252(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal and cannot be supported. In the circumstances of the case the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwar, is accepted. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Dharwar, dismissing the application filed by the first respondent for summoning the two witnesses is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to issue summons to the witnesses cited by the first respondent and examine them before calling upon the accused to enter upon their defence. S.V.S. ----- Reference accepted.