JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.09 passed by I-ASJ, Guna in ST No. 67/09 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling the witness Dhanno as prosecution witness was allowed, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the pe­titioner was prosecuted for an offence al­leged to have been, committed under Sec­tion 302, IPC. In the challan filed by the re­spondent there were 14 witnesses named in the charge-sheet. After examination of all the witnesses application was filed by the respondent under Section 311 Cr.P.C., wherein it was prayed that the respondent be permitted to examine Dhanno as prosecution witness. The application was op­posed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the application was allowed and the respondent was permitted to examine Dhanno as prosecution witness, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub­mits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Dhanno was not named in the Challan as prosecution wit­ness. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial Court committed error in allowing the application filed by the respondent. It is sub­mitted that the petition filed by the peti­tioner be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent sub­mits Dhanno was also related to the inci­dent and his statement could not be re­corded at the time of investigation, there­fore, the application was filed, which has rightly been allowed by the learned trial Court, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the petition filed by the pe­titioner be dismissed. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Investigating Officer was knowing it well that Dhanno is also a wit­ness, whose statement could not have been recorded while collecting the evidence un­der Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the facts and cir­cumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court commit­ted error in allowing the application filed by the respondent. Since the name of Dhanno was not shown in the challan and no statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, there was no justifi­cation on the part of learned Court below in allowing the application filed by the respon­dent for permitting to examine Dhanno as prosecution witness. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, whereby the application filed by the respon­dent under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed, is set aside. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. CC as per rules. Petition allowed.