1. Heard Mr. B.K. Kaw, learned Advocate for petitioners as well as Mrs. Shaista Hakim, Government Advocate for respondents. 2. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu dated: 16-07-2001. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu allowed the application of the respondent-State and permitted the production of three witnesses in invoking provision of section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.). 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the trial court has misconstrued the provisions of section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.) and its application not in right perspective in allowing production of the witnesses, whose names do not figure in the panel of witnesses, specified in the challan. It is further contended that respondent-State cannot be allowed to improve the prosecution case by the production of the witnesses, merely on the ground that it has been found in the evidence of Chatter Pal and Shiv Ram examined during the trial that the children of the accused Rash Pal and victim Soma Devi were also present at the time of occurrence. The respondent had filed this application for production of the witnesses after a period of five years and had their evidence been essential for just decision of the case being the eye witnesses of the occurrence; what prevented the respondent in not approaching the court with utmost promptitude, remains unexplained and enigmatic. 4. Lastly, It is submitted by the petitioners Advocate that the order passed by the trial court suffers from legal infirmity and has occasioned mis-carriage of justice. 5. Ms. Shaista Hakim Learned Government Advocate for respondent in controverting the contention of the petitioners submitted that section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.) is expressed in the widest possible term and does not limit the discretion of the court in any way, the discretionary power can be invoked at any stage of trial for the ends of justice. That the witnesses sought to be produced, are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and their evidence is very material for the just decision of the case. 6. Indubitably, the power to summon any person as witness or to trial and re-examine him, can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, provided the examination is essential for just decision of the case. 6. Indubitably, the power to summon any person as witness or to trial and re-examine him, can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, provided the examination is essential for just decision of the case. Opportunity, however, should be given to other party, whenever a new evidence is admitted. It is not disputed that the evidence of Chatter Pal and Shiv Ram recorded during the trial disclosed that Naresh Kumar, Garo Devi and Tinkoo Kumar children of Soam Devi and accused Rashpal have seen the occurrence and were present there at the relevant time. In many instances it happens that new light is thrown on the case by the witnesses, but it becomes desirable, in the interest of justice when their names figured as eye witnesses of the occurrence in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution during trial, where some material witnesses was not examined during investigation and their evidence are found essential for the just decision of the case, the court can summon those witnesses even on its motion in exercise of its discretion under section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.) Object of section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.) is obviously to enable the court to arrive at the truth by summoning and examining the witnesses, who can give relevant evidence irrespective of the fact whether a particular party has summoned them or not. Section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.) confers a wide discretion on the court to act as the exigencies of justice require. Mere delay as bounced by the petitioners Advocate, Mr. Kaw, is no ground for refusing exercise of power under section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.), if it is essential to the just decision of the case. Where the court is of the opinion that the evidence of certain witnesses are essential to the just decision of the case, it is bound to summon them. However, this power has to be exercised sparingly only when ends of justice so demand. The higher the power, the. more careful and circumspect should be its exercise. 7. Where the court is of the opinion that the evidence of certain witnesses are essential to the just decision of the case, it is bound to summon them. However, this power has to be exercised sparingly only when ends of justice so demand. The higher the power, the. more careful and circumspect should be its exercise. 7. It therefore, follows that the court when found that the evidence of the witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case, this evidence need not be shut out merely on the ground of delay or laches on part of the prosecution agency or investigating agency. There does not appear in my opinion, any infirmity much less legal infirmity, which calls for interference in this revision. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision possessing no merit, is hereby dismissed.