JUDGMENT 1. Brief facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. are that the alleged occurrence is dated 5.4.1997 and charges under various Sections of I.P.C. 148, 323, 324, 326, 307 IPC were framed. The first prosecution witness was examined on 10.9.1999 and the last prosecution witness P.W. 14 was examined on 13.4.01. Thereafter on 20.4.01, the accused Non-petitioners were examined as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence one witness was examined on 4.5.01. Defence evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments on 11.5.2001. Next date for final arguments was fixed 14.5.2001. Since final arguments were incomplete the case was adjourned to 17.5.2001. On that day an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution with a prayer that Dr. Pradeep Pareek who x-rayed the injured persons could not be examined and two other doctors Dr. Daima and Dr. Vishal operated the injured, therefore, these three witnesses should be summoned as provided under Section 311 C.P.C. On 19.5.2001, this application was allowed with the condition that Special Public Prosecutor would produce all these three witnesses at his own level and case was fixed on 29.5.01. On that day, these witnesses were not present and learned Special Public Prosecutor was asked to produce these witnesses on the next day 1.6.2001 but these witnesses were not present on that day, therefore, the learned Judge adjourned the case for final arguments. One another application was later on moved on behalf of the prosecution for grant of more time to produce the witnesses but the said prayer was rejected vide order dated 2.6.2001. Hence this petition. In this back ground this petition was filed on behalf of the complainant with a prayer that the orders of the trial court dated 29.5.2001 and 2.5.2001, should be quashed and all the three witnesses should be allowed to examine. Learned counsel for the complainant referred letter dated 9.5.2001, sent by learned Special Public Prosecutor to S.P. for service of notice upon these three witnesses and on the back of this letter Dr. Ratan Daima noted that he is going to Andhra Pradesh on 1.6.2001, so it is not possible for him to appear on that day and case may be fixed after ten days. Ratan Daima noted that he is going to Andhra Pradesh on 1.6.2001, so it is not possible for him to appear on that day and case may be fixed after ten days. According to learned counsel for the complainant there was no fault on the part of prosecution and evidence of three doctors was necessary for just decision of this case. Per contra learned counsel for the accused non-petitioners relying upon 1998 Cr.L.J. 950 and 2001(1) R.C.C. 624 contended that ample opportunity was given to the prosecution but they did not avail it and therefore, there is no ground to interfere. 2. I have considered the rival submissions. Dr. Pradeep Pareek was listed as a prosecution witness and he was present in the Court and produced X-ray plates on 18.8.2000 but learned Public Prosecutor declined to examine Dr. Pradeep Pareek. Subsequently learned Public Prosecutor vide application dated 17.5.2001, requested to summon this witness also without assigning any reason as to why this witness was earlier dropped by him. However, the prayer of learned Public Prosecutor vide application dated 17.5.2001 was allowed by learned Judge and it was specifically ordered that the PP has to produce all the three witnesses on his own level. This order was passed on 19.5.2001 and next date for recording their statements was fixed on 29.5.01. It is significant to mention here that the learned PP sent a letter to S.P. Dausa, for informing these witnesses on 29.5.2001, the date fixed for recording the evidence of these witnesses. It goes to show that the prosecution was not vigilant at all to produce these witnesses. Yet one more opportunity was allowed by learned Court but that too was also not availed and now to argue that the trial court did not allow any opportunity is without any merit. It is also not made clear as to how the examination of these witnesses is essential for just decision of the case. In 2001(1) R.C.C. 623, it was held that the Court closed the prosecution evidence after giving many opportunities, therefore this Court in its revisional power can not interfere with the order closing the evidence. In 1998 Cr.L.J. 950, it was held that the prosecution already closed this evidence and case was fixed for final arguments and no special circumstances were pointed out to justify summoning the witness for examination. In 1998 Cr.L.J. 950, it was held that the prosecution already closed this evidence and case was fixed for final arguments and no special circumstances were pointed out to justify summoning the witness for examination. In the instant case as stated hereinabove, the prosecution evidence commenced on 10.9.1999 and was closed on 13.4.2001 and thereafter one defence witness was examined on 4.5.2001 and case was adjourned for two times for final arguments. Keeping in view the above entire discussion, this petition being devoid of merit is e hereby dismissed. Record of trial court be sent back within a period of seven days with a copy of this order.Petition dismissed. *******