RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. PC is directed to challenge the order No. 62 of 12. 04. 2004 passed by 9th Fast Track Court at Calcutta in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2004 allowing the prosecution to examine witnesses not named in the chargesheet. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is of the alleged offence of cheating and forgery and conspiracy by the present petitioners Alamgir Hossain and his wife rehana Begum by forging signature of Gopendra Nath Dutta, the father of the complainant. Charge was framed for alleged offences under sections 364, 467, 468, 471,120b IPC. In addition to such charges subsequently charge under section 474 IPC was framed against both the accused persons. After some of the witnesses of the prosecution were examined the prosecution filed two petitions dated 04. 02. 2005 and 08. 04. 2005 by the petition dated 04. 02. 2005 the prosecution wanted to examine the witnesses like (1) Sri shankar Prasad Mitra, Chief Manager (Personnel), Banking Division, State bank of India, Park Street Branch, (2) Sri Gobinda Mukherjee, Advocate and (3) Sri Milan Roy, Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Hastings Branch. By the petition dated 08. 04. 2005 the prosecution wanted to examine one Md. Murtuza Khan in the place of Md. Muzaffar Khan as the name was misquoted in the chargesheet. On 08. 04. 2005 the prosecution also filed a petition for examining the witnesses like (1) Sri Kishore Kumar Basu, Chief Manager (Personnel), Banking Division, State Bank of India, Park Street Branch, (2)Sri Achinta Kumar Nag, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, park Street Branch and (3) Sri Rabindra Kanti Bhowmick, Chief Manager, state Bank of India, Park Street Branch. ( 3 ) REGARDING the prayer for summoning Murtuza Khan appearing in the chargesheet the opposite party did not raise any dispute and learned Trial court allowed such petition. ( 4 ) REGARDING such 6 (six) prosecution witnesses their names were not mentioned in the list of witnesses in the chargesheet although it is found that Shankar Prasad Mitra, Chief Manager (Personnel), Banking Division, state Bank of India, Park Street Branch produced the cheque No. 124706 dated 22. 12. 1998 of Gopendra Nath Dutta to the Investigating Officer under a seizure list dated 22. 06. 1999 the copy of which was served upon the defence. 12. 1998 of Gopendra Nath Dutta to the Investigating Officer under a seizure list dated 22. 06. 1999 the copy of which was served upon the defence. ( 5 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that Advocate Sri Goutam mukherjee produced some documents namely original agreement, power of attorney, receipt of sale deed, original deed of late Namita Dutta wife gopendra Nath Dutta, money receipts (5) true certificate of possession, to the police of Hastings Police Station under a seizure list copy of which was served upon the defence. ( 6 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that Milan Roy, Senior manager, UCO Bank, Hastings Branch produced one signature card of gopendra Nath Dutta and one Smt. Prova Ghosh to police of Hastings P. S. on 17. 09. 1999. ( 7 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that the said witness Kishore kumar Basu is to prove the signature card which he produced to the police. Achinta Kumar Nag, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Park street Branch and Rabindra Kanti Bhowmick, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Park Street Branch are the seizure witnesses in respect of seizure of the cheque being cheque No. 124706 dated 22. 12. 1998 of Gopendra Nath dutta. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution such witnesses are very much necessary to be examined for arriving at a just decision of the case. ( 9 ) LEARNED Trial Court after hearing both sides allowed all the said petitions and also allowed the prosecution to examine of such witnesses and to issue summons to such witnesses. ( 10 ) THE petitioners being aggrieved by such order of learned Court below has filed this application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. PC challenging such impugned order of the Court below. ( 11 ) MR. Joy Sengupta, Advocate appearing for the petitioners has urged that the defence will be prejudiced by examination of such witnesses by the prosecution as they were not mentioned in the list of witnesses in the chargesheet and as also they were not examined by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr. PC. According to him, the power to examine witnesses under section 311 Cr. PC is not unguided but has to be exercised fairly, non-arbitrarily and so that the defence is not prejudiced in any way. ( 12 ) MR. PC. According to him, the power to examine witnesses under section 311 Cr. PC is not unguided but has to be exercised fairly, non-arbitrarily and so that the defence is not prejudiced in any way. ( 12 ) MR. Usuf Ali, Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the petition of the petitioners on the ground that such examination of witnesses were necessary for arriving at a just decision of the case and their examination will not cause any material prejudice to the accused persons. ( 13 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the said six witnesses were not mentioned in the chargesheet. It is also not disputed that such witnesses were not examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation. The spirit of section 311 cr. PC is that the Court has got the mandatory duty to summon any person as a witness if the evidence of such person be essential for the just decision of the case. In the present case, seizure of signature cards of Gopendra nath Dutta lying in the bank were made during investigation. The seizure of certain other documents like original agreement, power-of-attorney, certificate of possession, money receipts etc. were made from Gobinda mukherjee, Advocate. All these seizures were made under seizure list the copies of which were already served upon the accused persons/petitioners. But unfortunately, those witnesses to such seizures were not cited in the list of witnesses of the chargesheet. Such omission might be a fault of the investigating Officer, but for such reason the prosecution and hence the de facto complainant cannot be deprived of the justice. After all, the defence is not being brought into surprise with the prayer of summoning such six witnesses who were already witnesses to the seizures or from whom the seizures were made. Such seizures cannot be said to be irrelevant in this case. Now learned Court below did not make any error by issuing summons to such witnesses specially when the defence is not going to be prejudiced in any way by such examination of witnesses. ( 14 ) MR. Usuf Ali, Advocate appearing for the State cited decision reported in 1991 SCC (Cri) 595, Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India and Anr. , in support of his contention. ( 14 ) MR. Usuf Ali, Advocate appearing for the State cited decision reported in 1991 SCC (Cri) 595, Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India and Anr. , in support of his contention. As per the said reported decision, in order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision, this statutory-provision of section 540 of the Code (section 311 of the new Code) are enacted whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding, can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendence. But I find that the accused is always entitled to a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut the evidence brought on record against him. Now, if the accused persons given chance to cross-examine such witnesses and if the defence is not brought to any surprise by examining such witnesses there cannot be any question of arbitrary user of the power conferred under section 311 of the Cr. PC. ( 15 ) MR. Usuf Ali, Advocate appearing for the State also cited decision reported in 1999 C Cr. LR (Cal) 182, Kalpana Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. , wherein the Single Judge of this Court observed that if the magistrate thinks that certain evidence is essential for a just decision of a case, he is bound to bring that on record whether the justification emanates of a party or not. Learned Advocate for the State also cited a decision reported in 2005 (2) C Cr. LR (Cal) 367, Nirmala Devi vs. Ranjit Singh and Anr. , which analyzed the provision of section 311 Cr. PC. In view of such decision the court is to exercise the power under section 311 Cr. PC and will have to play an active role to prevent irretrievable or immeasurable damage to the cause of society, public interest and miscarriage of justice and the said power of the Court is to be exercised for the purpose of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts. ( 16 ) CONSIDERING the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and also the provisions of section 311 Cr. PC. I find that learned Court below was justified in allowing the prosecution to examine witnesses and to bring relevant evidences on record so as to arrive at a just decision of the case. ( 16 ) CONSIDERING the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and also the provisions of section 311 Cr. PC. I find that learned Court below was justified in allowing the prosecution to examine witnesses and to bring relevant evidences on record so as to arrive at a just decision of the case. The accused persons cannot be said to be put to any surprise nor can they be prejudiced nor can it be said that by bringing such evidence the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case. It is not the case of the defence that any contradictory evidence has already come into record and the prosecution is trying to fill up such lacuna by examining these new witnesses. ( 17 ) THUS considering all such aspects, I am of the opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of learned Trial Court allowing the prosecution to examine the aforesaid witnesses and also directing issuance of summons to bring such witnesses in Court. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY the application under section 401 read with section 482 cr. PC filed by the petitioners is dismissed on contest. Application dismissed on contest.