JUDGMENT 1. - Both these criminal revision petitions are directed against the order dated 07.08.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 184/2001, whereby the trial Court rejected the application filed by the State through the Add. Public Prosecutor under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for recalling two prosecution witnesses PW. - 10 Amar Singh and PW. - 11 Bajranglal. Notices of these revision petitions were served upon the accused - respondents. The matter was called twice but no one appeared on behalf of the accused - respondents. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Rukma and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order impugned. I have also carefully gone through the record of trial Court. 3. Smt. Mani, daughter of petitioner Smt. Rukma, was found dead in the house of the accused respondents in suspicious circumstances otherwise than in normal course within four years of her marriage. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that Smt. Mani was subjected to cruelty and harassed for demand of dowry by her husband and his other relatives who were arraigned as accused. Autopsy of the body of Smt. Mani was conducted. The portions of various organs of the body were taken out, preserved and sent for chemical and histopathological examinations. The Stale F.S.L., in its result of analysis, indicated positive tests for the presence of Monocrotophos insecticide (an organophosphorus insecticide) in portions of viscera (1 - 6) and washings of Ex. - 8 from packets marked B, A and C, respectively. In the opinion of the Medical Board which conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Smt. Mani the cause of death could be ascertained after receiving the report of chemical examination of viscera. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the report of the FSL with regard to chemical analysis of the viscera has been received and both the officials who took the substance from hospital and carried it to FSL are, therefore, required to be examined with regard to the events. Section 311, Cr.RC. enjoins a duty on the Court to summon and examine or call and re - examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. 4. Section 311, Cr.RC. enjoins a duty on the Court to summon and examine or call and re - examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. 4. In the instant case, RW.-10 Amar Singh and RW.-11 Bajrang Lal are material witnesses and for just decision of the case their statements are essential to be recorded in the interest of justice. In Mohan Lal Shamji Soni v. Union of India & Anr., 1991 Supp (1) 271 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: The very usage of the words such as `any Court', `at any stage', or `of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings', `any person and any such person' clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow for any discretion but it binds and compels the Court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case." 5. In the result, both these revision petitions are allowed. Application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. moved by the Addl. Public Prosecutor before the trial Court is ordered to be allowed. Record of the trial Court be returned forthwith.Revision allowed. *******