JUDGMENT - Smt. TAHILRAMANI V.K., J.:---Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2001 which is pending before the IIIrd Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangli. The said case arose out of C.R. No. 82 of 2001 registered at Jath Police Station. The said case is under sections 376, 363, 366 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The said case was registered upon the complaint of Bayakka Pandurang Narute of Jath i.e. mother of prosecutrix i.e. Sangita. 3. In the said case, the charge was framed against the present petitioner under section 363 read with sections 34, 366 read with section 34 and section 376 of I.P.C. In the said case, the prosecutrix and some of the witnesses were examined. Thereafter, an application was preferred by the prosecution stating that Ms. Sangita Pandurang Narute (prosecutrix) was studying in Ramrao Vidya Mandir High School, Jath. It is further stated in the application that the said school issued School Leaving Certificate and in the said certificate, date of birth of Ms. Sangita is shown as being born in the year 1988. In the said application, it was further stated that it is necessary to bring the evidence on record from the school. Hence, it was prayed by the prosecution in the said application that summons may be issued in the name of Head Master of Shri Ramrao Vidya Mandir High School, Jath to attend as a witness. The said application i.e. Exhibit 42 came to be allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 8th August, 2003. In the said order, it is observed as under : "Application (Exhibit 42) is hereby allowed. Issue summons to Head Master of Shri Ramrao Vidya Mandir High School, Jath to attend before this Court along with the school record in respect of Ms. Sangita Pandurang Narote." 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has already examined the prosecutrix Ms. Sangita. It is further stated that mother of prosecutrix and the Investigating Officer has also been examined, hence, at such stage, if the application is allowed, it would cause prejudice to the accused. 5. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has already examined the prosecutrix Ms. Sangita. It is further stated that mother of prosecutrix and the Investigating Officer has also been examined, hence, at such stage, if the application is allowed, it would cause prejudice to the accused. It is further submitted that the Head Master of the said school was not cited as a witness by the prosecution therefore, he cannot be examined as a witness. Hence, it is prayed that order dated 8th August, 2003 may be set aside. 6. Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Court to issue summons to witnesses at any stage of the trial, if the evidence of such witness is essential to the just decision of the case. The case against the petitioner is that he kidnapped Ms. Sangita a minor from the lawful guardianship of mother with intention to compel her to have illicit intercourse and the petitioner is also charged in respect of rape upon said minor girl. On perusal of the papers in this case, it is very clear that since the beginning the prosecution case is that Sangita was a minor at the time of the incident. In the charge which has been framed in this case, it is specifically mentioned that Sangita was minor at the relevant time. So also from the evidence of Sangita specially in para 13, it is clear that Sangita was minor at the time of incident. In the present case, Dr. Prakash Kamble has been examined. He has examined Ms. Sangita at the time of the incident. He has stated in his evidence that at that time, he found Sangita was 15 years old. From perusal of the provisions of section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is quite clear that the material witness whose evidence is necessary for the just decision of a case, can be examined. Such witness can be examined at any stage of the trial. No doubt, the Head Master is not cited as a witness. From perusal of the provisions of section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is quite clear that the material witness whose evidence is necessary for the just decision of a case, can be examined. Such witness can be examined at any stage of the trial. No doubt, the Head Master is not cited as a witness. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that it is not restricted only to issuing the summons to examine the witness who is cited as a witness by the prosecution, but summons can also be issued by the Court to a witness whose evidence is essential for the just decision of the case even if the said witness is not cited as a witness by the prosecution. In the present case, it is consistently the prosecution case that Sangita was a minor at the relevant time. So also, the petitioner (accused) was well aware of the case against him. Thus, it cannot be said that any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. In my view, the evidence of the witness from the said school i.e. Shri Ramrao Vidya Mandir High School, Jath is essential for the just decision of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. Any observations made in this order, should not influence the learned trial Judge while deciding the trial. Petition dismissed. -----