JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the order dated 8.9.2006 of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui Head Quarter Hausa in Sessions Case No. 54/2005 vide which application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 28.8.2006 for summoning of witnesses, namely Dr. Dinesh Chandra and Dr. Ramesh Chand Sain has been allowed at the stage of final arguments. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order of the learned trial court at the stage of final arguments of the case has been passed to fill-up the lacunae of the prosecution case and, therefore, it tantamounts to abuse of the process of the court. It is also contended that in cross-case, the application filed on behalf of accused-petitioners for summoning the Patwari as a court witness has been declined on the ground of delay and thus, the orders of the learned courts below in two cases are discriminatory. 3. Learned PP has supported the order of the trial court. He has also submitted that in the cross case cogent reasons have been given for refusing to grant the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and it cannot be said that the order is arbitrary or discriminatory. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also perused the impugned order as well as the relevant documents placed before me. 5. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under- 311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present : Any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 6. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the aforesaid section that it has got two parts. In the first part, it is in the discretion of the court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or proceedings under this Code to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance or to recall and re-examine any person already examined. In the first part, it is in the discretion of the court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or proceedings under this Code to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance or to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part of this section makes it obligatory on the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 7. In the instant case, the learned court below has allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution and has summoned Dr. Dinesh Chandra, Dentist and Dr. Ramesh Chand Sain, Medical Officer for evidence who were not named in the list of witnesses, but the documents prepared by them were on record. This cannot be said to be fulfilling the lacunae of the prosecution case. Indeed, to summon these witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case. So, there is neither any abuse of the process of the court nor it is otherwise essential to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this court to interfere with the order passed by the learned court below. 8. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******