JUDGMENT 1. :- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.1999 of Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura in Criminal Case No. 56/96 whereby, the said Court dismissed the petitioner's application for re-examination of prosecution witness Smt. Prem (PW 18) who had executed a registered sale-deed as well as the compromise exhibited before the concerned court. The grievance of the petitioner is that he wanted to prove the said documents by producing the original sale-deed as well as by summoning the file in which the compromise was duly arrived at as per the requirement of section 311, Cr.P.C. which postulates, as under: "Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined : and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 2. This provision needless to reiterate except to state that the discretion should be exercised by the concerned court in appropriate and deserving cases before whom the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. is presented to recall and re-examine any witness who has already been examined if it appears to the concerned court for evidence of such person by way of re-examination is not only essential but is also required for just decision of the case. The request of the petitioner was that Smt. Prem (PW 18), the prosecution-witness should be summoned for re-examination to prove the registered sale-deed as well as the compromise duly arrived at between the parties which could despite due diligence not be proved in evidence unless Smt. Prem was confronted with the said relevant documents executed by her in favour of the person concerned and which were very material for just decision of the case. The genuineness of these documents can neither be doubted nor disputed since they are the public documents. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the concerned Magistrate was under the bounden duty in discharge of its judicial functions to permit the aggrieved party to get the documents duly proved on the record even by recalling the witness who has already been examined if the ends of justice so demand. 3. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the concerned Magistrate was under the bounden duty in discharge of its judicial functions to permit the aggrieved party to get the documents duly proved on the record even by recalling the witness who has already been examined if the ends of justice so demand. 3. I am also fortified in my observations from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1993(2) RLR 758 , wherein the similar view was taken by this Court. In that case, the trial Court had rejected the accused's application for re-examination of the Investigating Officer on the ground that since the trial of the accused is pending for about 15 years and the Investigating Officer has already reired from service, he should not be re-examined. This Court held that in such circumstances, it was necessary for the just decision of the case by the learned Magistrate to have recalled and re-examined the concerned Investigating Officer and simply because the Investigating Officer has retired from service or that a case is pending trial for a long time, it would not be reasonable, valid and sufficient ground to refuse further examination of the Investigating Officer. In the instant case, since the accused is facing trial for offence under Sections 302, 457 and 201 Indian Penal Code and since the ends of justice requires that prosecution-witness Smt. Prem (PW 18) be summoned for her re-examination, I am consequently of the view that the impugned order dated 6.3.1999 of Additional Sessions Judge Malpura passed in Criminal Case No. 56/96 by which the said Court had dismissed the petitioner's application under section 311 Cr.?.C. deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned-order dated 6.3.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Malpura in Criminal Case No. 56/96 is quashed and set-aside. The trial Court is directed to recall the prosecution-witness Smt. Prem (PW 18) and the petitioner is accordingly directed to cross examine the said witness in the interest of justice.Revision Allowed. *******