ORDER Among these two revision cases, Crl.R.C.No.225 of 2004 has been filed by petitioners A2 and A3 against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.1255 of 2003 in C.C.No.44 of 2000 by the Additional District Sessions Judge and Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore which was filed under Sec.311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.12 in that case for the purpose of cross examination on the part of the petitioners A2 and A3. 2. Crl.R.C.No.545 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioners A1 to A3 against the order passed by the very same Judge in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2004 in the very same Calendar Case viz., C.C.No.44 of 2000 whereby the prayer of prosecution viz. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau for recalling the investigating officer P.W.1 in this case and for further examination under Sec.311, Cr.P.C. has been granted. 3. The fact remains that during the course of examination of P.W.12 in that case, the first accused viz. Narendra Kumar Jain alone cross examined P.W.12 and the second and third accused have not cross examined him. Now, A2 and A3 have filed Crl.M.P.No.1255 of 2003 for the purpose of recalling P.W.12 under Sec.311 Cr.P.C. for doing cross examination. However, the said Crl.M.P. has been dismissed for the reason that it is a belated one and protracting device. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended with emphasis that there is no intention to protract the proceedings and his parties are prepared to finish the cross examination within a time that can be fixed by this Court before the Trial Magistrate. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any acceptable reason to deny the request of A2 and A3 if it is a belated one and protracting device. Following that Cr.R.C.No.225 of 2004 is to be allowed and the order passed by the Court below in this respect is liable to be set aside with the specific observation that the petitioners A2 and A3 should take effective steps to recall P.W.12 and the prosecution also should co-operate for producing P.W.12 before the Trial Court for further cross examination and the cross examination should be completed within one month from this date. 6. Coming to Crl.R.C.No.545 of 2004, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer has to be necessarily examined for the purpose of explaining about the version of P.Ws.10 and 13 who have turned hostile. 6. Coming to Crl.R.C.No.545 of 2004, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer has to be necessarily examined for the purpose of explaining about the version of P.Ws.10 and 13 who have turned hostile. Further, the fact remains that this Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.1 and mahazar witnesses P.Ws.10 and 13 have been examined subsequently and thereby there is no chance for P.W.1 to have explained about the version of the witnesses examined subsequently. Therefore, in such circumstances, this revision has to be dismissed with the observation that the prosecution should produce P.W.1 and examine the necessary points relating to the version of hostile witnesses and further cross examination also, if necessary, should be done by the accused within one month from this date. 7. With the above observation, Crl.R.C.No.225 of 2004 is allowed and Crl.R.C.No.545 of 2004 is dismissed. The connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.