JUDGEMENT : 1. This application is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Rule was issued and the same is being heard finally today. 2. The applicants are accused persons in Sessions Case No. 23/2003. Allegedly, one Dattatraya Gopal Aher was assaulted by them on 21st July, 2003 by means of fists and kicks as well the knees on his abdomen and chest. It is alleged that said Dattatraya subsequently succumbed to the traumatic injuries. 3. In support of the prosecution case, PW12 Dr. Sandeep Kacheriya was examined. He conducted the post mortem examination and corroborated the post-mortem notes (Exh-62). He was cross-examined on behalf of the applicants. 4. An application was subsequently moved by the learned A.P.P. to recall PW12 Dr. Kacheriya on ground that Dr. Mrs. Jadhav had given certain opinion as regards examination of the human organs. That application was rejected. Thereafter, the complainant through advocate who was assisting the learned A.P.P. gave an application dated 03-04-2008 to call Dr. Anil Shinde, retired Medical Officer of Shrirampur as a witness for the prosecution. The learned A.P.P. gave no objection. The application was strongly objected on behalf of the applicants. They contended that the witness was unconcerned with the post-mortem examination and could not have any knowledge about the treatment or medical history of the patient. They contended that private complainant through advocate desired to bring certain evidence as per the whims and this practice was improper. Therefore, they sought dismissal of the application. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application. The learned Sessions Judge held that on account of controversy in respect of cause of death, though the witness was not named in the list of witnesses, yet, he was being called as an expert witness to spell out his opinion as regards cause of death and, therefore, his examination could be allowed. 5. Mr. Shinde, would submit that the application itself was filed without locus standi. He invited my attention to provisions of Section 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge should not have allowed intervention of advocate of the complainant and the application could be moved only through A.P.P. He argued that though the retired Medical Officer Dr. shinde was unconcerned with the examination of the deceased or the post-mortem examination, yet, his such examination was sought without any substantial reason. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge should not have allowed intervention of advocate of the complainant and the application could be moved only through A.P.P. He argued that though the retired Medical Officer Dr. shinde was unconcerned with the examination of the deceased or the post-mortem examination, yet, his such examination was sought without any substantial reason. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is unsustainable and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Chatterji relied on observations in "Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P. and others" 2008 AIR SCW 2206 and would contend that powers under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code are widest in its amplitude and, therefore, the impugned order is quite sustainable. The learned A.P.P. also supports the impugned order. 6. There cannot be duality of opinion that ordinarily, a private party like complainant cannot participate, directly, in the proceedings of the trial. If at all any application was to be moved for and on behalf of the complainant, then it ought to have been presented through learned A.P.P. It is, however, a technical error and would be of no much significance in the present case. For, the learned A.P.P. gave his no objection on the application and, therefore, his consent for submission of the application (Exh-86) can be assumed. The application was moved by the private complainant through his advocate with no objection of the learned A.P.P. and the Court granted the same for the reason that there was some controversy in respect of cause of the death and evidence of the Medical Officer (PW12) Dr. Kacheriya. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have allowed the request in order to clarify the reason regarding cause of the death. The impugned order shows that the learned Sessions Judge permitted examination of the another expert because "there is some controversy in respect of cause of death and evidence of the Medical Officer." The powers of the Court under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be exercised neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, but to enable the Court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The endeavour of the learned Sessions Judge appears to allow such examination to arrive at the truth. Consequently, it is difficult to say that the impugned order is impregnated with any vice of arbitrariness or capriciousness or perversity. Needless to say, it is unassessable. 7. For the reasons aforestated, I am not inclined to hold that the impugned order amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Still, however, it may be clarified that if the applicants want to rebut the evidence of the Medical Officer or the witness cited by the prosecution and whose examination is being sought, then while opening the defence after the examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they are at liberty to apply for examination of any other medical expert of their choice in order to rebut such opinion of the witness. With these observations, the application is dismissed. No costs.