Judgment :- (This revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.614 of 2005 in S.C.No.147 of 2004 dated 7.2.2005.) The above revision is filed challenging the order in Criminal M.P.No.614 of 2005 in S.C.No.147 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai dated 7.2.2005. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner has approached the Court below, by filing a petition under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to summon one Mohandoss for the purpose of examining him as a Court witnesses. The abovesaid Mohandoss is none-else than the maternal uncle and legal guardian of the deceased. The petition is filed on the premise that the abovesaid Mohandoss has been cited as prosecution witness No.18 and he is supposed to have attested the confession of the petitioner herein and also the magazars for the recovery of material objects recovered in pursuance of the said confession. The Investigating Officer viz., PW.42, has also claimed that Mohandoss has identified material objects before him, viz., photo and dollar. The abovesaid Mohandoss has also filed an affidavit on the file of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.39980 of 2003 to the effect that the alleged recovery of the chain from the accused was actually given by him to PW.42. In the said petition, it is further alleged that he could not be present in the cremation ground for the funeral in view of the fact that he was not even informed about the said cremation. In the backdrop of the above factual aspects, the above petition is filed to summon him and in order to examine him as a Court witness. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the said petition by observing that if the petitioner wants to examine him, he could do so as a defence witness and considering the fact that the matter stands posted for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The trial Court has not dealt with the matter in the light of the various averments urged in the petition filed before the Court. 5. The trial Court has not dealt with the matter in the light of the various averments urged in the petition filed before the Court. Inasmuch as a specific stand is taken in the petition to the effect that even though the abovesaid Mohandoss has been cited as prosecution witness No.18, who is supposed to have attested the confession of the petitioner and also the magazars for the recovery of the material objects, but the prosecution has failed to examine him as one of the witnesses, the grievance of the petitioner has to be considered favourably. More particularly, the abovesaid Mohandoss himself has filed an affidavit before this Court disputing the alleged recovery of the chain from the accused to the effect that the same was handed over by him to the Investigating Officer viz., PW.42. Further, it cannot be disputed that if the petitioner choose to examine the abovesaid Mohandoss as a defence witness, he could not cross-examine him to elicit all the points which he intended to be placed on record in the proceedings. The scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C is wider to the effect that there is a duty cast upon the Court to ensure that the witness has to be examined as a Court witness, in order to bring the relevant circumstances on record, if the prosecution is not prepared to do so. Even in a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat vs. Senma Savabhai Bhikhabhai (1995 CRI. L.J. 3061) which reads as follows: - "It cannot be gainsaid that the decision to drop the prosecution witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the police has to be justified by some reason even though in a cursory form, and even the Court is under a duty to ask the prosecutor as to why the witnesses have been dropped. It may be that some witnesses may not be supporting the prosecution case at the last moment; it may be that some witnesses may be facing an embarrassing situation and they may not be ready to depose at all, but in case of only circumstantial evidence it becomes the duty of the prosecution to examine such witnesses as may be able to throw any light on the alleged genesis of the case, even though they may not be ultimately supporting the prosecution. If prosecution decides to drop such witnesses it becomes the Court's duty to ask the prosecutor why such witnesses have been dropped. We are constrained to observe that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the Court must take initiative to summon and examine material witnesses in order to bring the relevant circumstances on record if the prosecution is not prepared or does not want to discharge its duty to examine all material witnesses, particularly because of the frequent criticism that the prosecution is merely an impersonal agency which is likely to be as lazy, weak or dishonest as any other public institution not run by private enterprise. This duty of the Court is reflected in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." Similarly, this Court in its decision rendered In re VENUGOPAL (AIR (39) 1952 MADRAS 509(C.N.114) observed as follows: - "The Assistant Public Prosecutor having given up such an important and material witness, the only alternative is for the Court to examine him as a Court witness. It is the duty of the Court to call him and examine him as a Court witness. The Magistrate has very rightly and properly called the petitioner to give evidence in the case. The discretion given to a Court to examine any person as a Court witness is very wide; and in its discretion it can call a witness at any stage of the case. There is no restriction as to the stage at which a witness may be called by a Court." 6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, particularly the present case on hand is also based on circumstantial evidence, the Court below ought to have summoned the abovesaid Mohandoss as a Court witness. No prejudice will be caused, if the abovesaid Mohandoss is examined as a Court witness. Hence, the order of the Court below is set aside and there will be a direction to the Trial Court to summon the abovesaid Mohandoss as a Court witness and he shall be examined. 7. It is brought to my knowledge that already another revision is entertained by the Court in Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2005, where the trial is stayed and yet another original petition is pending to transfer the trial from the concerned Court. 7. It is brought to my knowledge that already another revision is entertained by the Court in Crl.R.C.No.101 of 2005, where the trial is stayed and yet another original petition is pending to transfer the trial from the concerned Court. In the light of the pendency of the above matters, as and when the stay is vacated or the above revision is disposed of and if transfer is ordered or if the same Court is permitted to proceed with the trial, the concerned Trial Court should examine the abovesaid Mohandoss as a Court witness when the trial commences. 8. The revision petition is allowed with the above observations.