Judgment B. Prasad, J.-This petition has been filed by the complainant whereby his application for summoning four witnesses namely Niranjan Prasad and Ganpat Lal Choudhary alongwith Rajendra Joshi and Rameshwar Dayal was partly rejected. According to the reasons recorded by the Court Niranjan Prasad and Ganpat Lal Choudhary were not the witnesses, who were required to be called. But witnesses Rajendra Joshi and Rameshwar Dayal had been considered to be necessary to be called because Rajendra Joshi Dy. S.P. Bali and Rameshwar Dayal was Head Constable at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur has done something in relation to the incident. The present petitioner has not expressed any grievance regarding calling of Rajendra Joshi and Rameshwar Dayal. The grievance of the petitioner is that apart from these two witnesses, other two witnesses were also required to be summoned. 2. The trial Court observed that there is no necessity of calling Niranjan Prasad and Ganpat Lal Choudhary. They are not of any consequence to the case. I do not find any illegality in the order of the trial Court refusing to call these witnesses so as to make warrant interference by this Court to interfere in the petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The petition having no force is hereby dismissed. 3. According to the trial Court, it has power under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination and it is within its discretion. The Court has though observed that the complainant has no locus standi to move an application. It is for the Court to examine the matter. The Court had examined and has found that there is no case for summoning this witness again for re-examination. The reasoning of the trial Court is sound enough. It is not liable to be challenged in a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The petition having no force is hereby dismissed. 4. It may however by mentioned here that there was a technical point pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State was not a properly appointed P.P. on the relevant date. It is not necessary to go into the propriety of this question. The Court could consider the case if necessity was felt. The Court itself had examined the application and having exercised its jurisdiction, the question has become of academic importance. 5. The trail has reached the final stage. It is not necessary to go into the propriety of this question. The Court could consider the case if necessity was felt. The Court itself had examined the application and having exercised its jurisdiction, the question has become of academic importance. 5. The trail has reached the final stage. The trial Court has been slow in handling the case. In last few months there had been no proceedings. It is heartening to note that the case is pending before the trial Court at final stage and is not proceeding since June. It is directed that trial of the case should proceed day to day.