Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.:- This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.7.2010 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti, in S.T. No. 501 of 2000, whereby the court summoned Smt. Santoshi Devi, mother of the victim, for giving evidence. It was said in the order that as Smt. Santoshi Devi was an important witness to unfold the truth and because her statement was not recorded by the I.O., hence it was necessary to summon her. Heard Mr. S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Srivastava that this observation of the court below is wrong that the statement of Smt. Santoshi Devi was not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Her statement was very well recorded and she had disowned the prosecution version, therefore, it was not justified on the part of the court to summon her. I do not agree with this agreement. Even if it be assumed that the statement of Smt. Santoshi Devi was recorded by the I.O. and she had not supported the prosecution version in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. even then the powers of the trial court provided u/s 311 Cr.P.C. are not closed. The Court has ample power to examine or re-examine any witness if for deciding a case the examination or re-examination is necessary. In this view of the matter, even if the lady is said to have not supported the prosecution version, there was no binding upon the court to go by that statement and not to summon her for eliciting truth. In my opinion, the order passed by the court below is proper and does not require any interference. The application having no merits is hereby rejected.