JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Digod (Kota) dated 5.4.2000 by which he dismissed the application of the complainant submitted Under section 244 Cr.P.C. for summoning some witnesses. 2. Petitioner Smt. Mohini Bai filed a complaint for offences Under sections 494, 109 & 120-B IPC against the non-petitioners and the same is pending before the learned Magistrate. Out of three witnesses, two have been examined and one is said to have died. She then filed an application Under section 244 Cr.P.C. praying that Motilal, Bhagatraj, Babulal, Smt. Anita and Hari Shanker may be summoned but the same has been rejected. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 244 Cr.PC. empowers the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and the Magistrate may on the application of the prosecution issue a summon to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. It has been submitted that the words `all such evidence' used in Section 244(1) Cr.PC. does not limit the number of witnesses even if a list is appended to the complaint. It has been submitted that non- petitioners in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 485/95 have stated that that Prabha is already married with Bhagatraj and, therefore, it was necessary to produce Bhagatraj, Motilel and other witnesses as they were related to Prabha before she went in `Nata' to Om Prakash. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the grounds that the statement of complainant was recorded on 12.4.96 and her father's statement was recorded 22.4.97 and that the witnesses whom the complainant wanted to produce were not related to the occurrence and that no list of witnesses was submitted alongwith the complaint and that it was not disclosed before him that for what purpose the witnesses were going to to be examined. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Nawal Kishore Shukla & Ors. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Nawal Kishore Shukla & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 1992 Cr.L.J. 1554 in which Allahabad High Court has held that court can permit examination of witness not mentioned in the list of witnesses and it is also not necessary that all witnesses named in the list should have been examined before granting such a permission. This was in relation to Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Jamuna Rani v. S. Krishna Kumar & Ors., 1993 Cr.LJ 32 , Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the words `all such evidence' in Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide enough and court can permit examination of witnesses not mentioned in the list appended to the complaint. In Kailash Narayan v. State of Raj. & Ors., 1998 (2) RCC 637 , it was held that Section 244 Cr.P.C. creates a valuable rights in complainants to lead evidence before charge and if a Magistrate refuses to record evidence merely on the ground that the trial was pending for more than 4 years and discharged accused persons, such an order was proper and the order of discharge was quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner wants to fill up the lacunae and that the proceedings are pending for quite a long time and such a petition should not be allowed Under section 482 Cr.PC. He relied on Ram Prasad v. State of Raj. & Ors., RCC 1989 page 583 in which the case was pending for more than 10 years, an application Under section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Magistrate and the matter had come to the High Court Under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Needless to say that here witnesses whom the petitioner wants to examine appeared to be necessary and as held by Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, Section 244 gives ample powers to the Magistrate to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and Rajasthan High Court has held that the section gives valuable right to complainant. I am of the view that the complainant should be given an opportunity to examine the witnesses named by her in the application. The order of the learned Magistrate suffers from infirmity and cannot be upheld. 8. I am of the view that the complainant should be given an opportunity to examine the witnesses named by her in the application. The order of the learned Magistrate suffers from infirmity and cannot be upheld. 8. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to examine the witnesses whose names have been given by the complainant in the list. They are (1) Motilal s/o Rampratap; (2) Bhagatraj w/o Motilal; (3) Babulal s/o Bholaji; (4) Smt. Anita Bai w/o Prakash Chand; and (5) Hari Shanker s/o Mannoji. The learned Magistrate is further directed to take up this old case which of 1996 on priority basis.Petition allowed. *******