JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. This revision is directed against an order, of the Trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bijnor, dated 5th May, 2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 651 of 2004 under Sections 302, 201 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the application made by the accused under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code for summoning of witnesses, namely, Rati Ram, Khalil Ahmad and Surendra for examination as they were material witnesses of the recovery of the arm, evidence of last seen and the inquest, has been rejected. 3. Under the impugned order, the Additional Sessions Judge has recorded following findings : (a) it is for the prosecution to produce such witnesses as it likes and no application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the behest of the accused for summoning the witnesses can be maintained, (b) the entire evidence of the prosecution is already over, (c) there is an order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 30th January, 2009 passed in Revision No. 3251 of 2008 directing that the trial Court may conclude the proceedings within three months. 4. The contention raised on behalf of the revisionist is opposed by the learned Additional Government Advocate and it is stated that the Court below has rightly directed that the accused cannot insist upon the production of the witnesses which have not been produced as witnesses by the prosecution, nor the aforesaid three persons were shown as witnesses in the charge-sheet. Reliance in that regard has been placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate upon Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 6. I am of the considered opinion that the issue which up for consideration before this Court is as to whether under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused has a right to summon any person as a witness, although he may not be named in the charge-sheet, and may not have produced as witness by the prosecution. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the issue which up for consideration before this Court is as to whether under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused has a right to summon any person as a witness, although he may not be named in the charge-sheet, and may not have produced as witness by the prosecution. 7. The matter needs to be examined in light of language of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is being quoted herein below : "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 re­examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." 8. From simple reading of Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code, it is apparently clear that Courts have been conferred wide powers to summon any person as witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or to recall and re-examine any person already examined. Said power is hetched with only one condition that such examination/re-examination must be essential for just decision of the case. 9. I am of the considered opinion that power conferred upon the Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has to be given widest latitude, inasmuch as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are for regulating the proceedings of criminal case, where liberty of person is involved. Therefore, an application for summoning a witness has to be dealt with by the Court with reference to the scope of Section 311, and it has to be examined as to whether such presence of witness/person is essential for just decision of the case. 10. From the reasons recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge under the impugned order quoted above, it is apparently clear that grounds mentioned therein have absolutely no reference to the issue as to whether the examination asked for by the revisionist qua Rati Ram, Khalil Ahmad and Surendra was essential for the just decision of the case or not. 10. From the reasons recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge under the impugned order quoted above, it is apparently clear that grounds mentioned therein have absolutely no reference to the issue as to whether the examination asked for by the revisionist qua Rati Ram, Khalil Ahmad and Surendra was essential for the just decision of the case or not. The grounds mentioned under the impugned order are therefore, irrelevant, vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Bijnor dated 5th May, 2009 is hereby quashed. Let the aforesaid three persons, namely, Rati Ram, Khalil Ahmad and Surendra be summoned for examination within fifteen days from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Trial Court. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties and their examination shall proceeds on day-to-day basis. 11. The present revision is allowed subject to the observations made above. ———