ORDER: Aggrieved by an order dated 29.6.2001 in Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2001 allowing the application filed under Sec. 311 of Crl.P.C. to reopen the case and to re-examine two witnesses on the prosecution side, the petitioners have preferred the above petition to set aside the said order dated 29.6.2001 on two grounds: (i) that the application was not filed by the prosecution, but only by the respondents 2 and 3 who propose to give evidence in the matter: and (ii) the respondents 2 and 3 were not examined by the investigation officer and their statements were not recorded under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. 2. In this regard I am obliged to refer Sec. 311 of Crl.P.C. which reads as follows: “Sec. 311 : Power to summon material witness or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as 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.” 3. It is well-settled in law that Sec. 311, Crl.P.C. confers wide powers on the Court to summon and examine or recall or re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court ought not to have entertained the representation preferred by the respondents 2 and 3, when no such request for recall of the case or re-examination was made by the prosecution is not tenable in law. 4. The wider the powers conferred on the Court under Sec. 311 of Crl.P.C. the greater the discretion required to be exercised by the Court. Therefore, as held in T. Bashyam v. State by The Drugs Inspector, 1975 L. W. (Crl.) 53 the Courts jurisdiction must obviously be dictated by the exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense has to be safeguarded and such power must be exercised only if satisfied that the evidence sought to be examined is essential to the just decision of the case. Once the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence sought to be examined is essential to the just decision of the case, it requires a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine such witnesses. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the contentions that the prosecution has not taken any step to reopen the case; that the investigation officer has not examined the witnesses but proposes to examine them; and that no statement under Sec. 161 of Crl.P.C. was recorded cannot be a legitimate obstruction to the powers conferred on the Court to invoke Sec. 311 of Crl.P.C. in as much as the application under Sec. 311 of Crl.P.C. can be made and decided on satisfaction of the Court that such witnesses sought to be examined are essential to the just decision of the case and non-examination of such witnesses under Sec. 161 of Crl.P.C. cannot be a handicap. Hence finding no merits, this petition is dismissed. 5. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.5337 of 2001. B.S.-----Petition dismissed.