JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Bhadrak in S.T. Case No. 109/112 of 1998 allowing the application of the prosecution to examine further witnesses. 2. The contention of the learned counsel is that since the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated 18.7.2002 on the basis of the Memo filled by the prosecution, directed closure of the evidence, allowing an application u/s 311, Cr.P.C. would amount to recalling the order which is impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision of the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh, in support of his contention. In that case the Apex Court held that when a Magistrate by a judicial order giving full reason, dismissed the complaint, even though the Magistrate had any jurisdiction to recall the order, it could have been done by another judicial order after giving reasons that he was satisfied that a case was made out for recalling the order. The decision referred to has no application to the facts of the present case nor for the proposition raised. The submission that the Magistrate is not empowered to recall a witness or direct examination in terms of the provision of Section 311, Cr.P.C., made by the learned counsel is thoroughly misconceived. Section 311 of the Code itself vests the criminal Courts with ample power at any stage or any enquiry, trial or other proceeding to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if evidence of such person appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. 3. The first part of Section 311 of the Code is discretionary and enables a Court at any stage to summon anyone as a witness or to examine any person present in Court or to recall or re-examine any witness, but the second part is of mandatory character requiring the Court in such an event to take any of the above steps, if the new evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. There is no limitation of the power of the Court and the Court may exercise power at any stage to which the trial Court may have reached, provided that the Court is of the opinion that for a just decision of the case, such a step should be taken. A reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, dealing with the corresponding provision in the old Code u/s 540. In Raj Deo Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar, the Apex Court observed that the power of the Court as envisaged in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been curtailed by the decision of the Seven Judges' Bench in A.R. Antulay's Case, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1709 The Court observed that even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the direction contained in the main judgment, it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the power u/s 311 of the Code. If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the duty of the Court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine any such person. 4. In the case at hand, therefore, even if the learned trial Court by order dated 18.7.2002 direct closure of the prosecution witness, if on the application of the prosecution, it was satisfied that for a just decision, in the case, the prosecution should be allowed to examine a person, who was cited as a charge-sheet, witness, it cannot be faulted nor such action of the learned trial court would be contrary to the provision of law. 5. In such view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order for interference in the present application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed