1. Case F.I.R No. 198/2010 was registered on 14-10-2010 u/s 447, 302 & 325 RFC against the petitioner. The investigation culminated in filing of report u/s 173 Cr.PC against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges and, accordingly, he was put on trial. The prosecution examined some of the witnesses, who, in their depositions before the learned trial Court stated that Mst. Asifa Hamid and Mst. Razia Hamid Dauthters of Mst. Asha, who was, allegedly, killed by the petitioner, have seen the occurrence. Their statements were not recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC during the investigation of the case. In view of the statements of the prosecution witnesses that these daughters of the deceased were present on spot when the alleged occurrence took place and are, thus, eye witnesses of the crime, application u/s 540 Cr.PC was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor seeking summoning of these two persons so that their statements are recorded. The application was resisted by the petitioner, in as much as, in his objections, it was stated by him that during the investigation of the case, statements of the eye witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC were never recorded and no explanation is forthcoming as to why father of these two girls did not produce them before the police when the case was being investigated. The application for summoning of these witnesses was also resisted on the ground that husband of the deceased and other witnesses have been examined and there is no need to examine other witnesses and that the application has been filed at a belated stage. 2. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 07-03-2012 allowed the application and directed Mst. Asifa Hamid and Mst. Razia Hamid Daughters of Shri Ham-idullah Ganai R/O Garola, Bandipora to appear before the Court for getting their statements recorded. It is this order which is called in question in this petition. 3. Mr. S.T.Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Judge, in the facts of this case, could not exercise the power u/s 540 Cr.PC for summoning of the aforementioned persons. He further submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there was no requirement of summoning of the aforementioned witnesses. 3. Mr. S.T.Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Judge, in the facts of this case, could not exercise the power u/s 540 Cr.PC for summoning of the aforementioned persons. He further submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there was no requirement of summoning of the aforementioned witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial has been delayed because of filing of application and passing of the impugned order, where under, these two ladies have been ordered to appear for deposing before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, referred to and relied upon paragraphs 17,18 & 20 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Vijay Kumar-appellant v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another- respondents, reported in (2011)3 SCC (Cri) 371 and paragraph 15 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Gurdeep Singh - Appellant v. State of Punjab and others-respondents, reported in (2012) 1SCC (Cri) 584. The respective paragraphs of the aforementioned judgements are reproduced hereun-der for facility of reference : "VIJAY KUMAR V. STATE OF UP. 17. Though section 311 confers vast discretion upon the Court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Before directing the learned Special Judge to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness, the High Court did not examine the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge as to why it was not necessary to examine her as a court witness and has given the impugned direction without assigning any reason. 18. The High Court failed to consider the case of the prosecution that the application was submitted by Respondent 2 only to delay the trial and no case was made out by Respondent 2 as to why direction should be given to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness. 18. The High Court failed to consider the case of the prosecution that the application was submitted by Respondent 2 only to delay the trial and no case was made out by Respondent 2 as to why direction should be given to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness. In a bribe case what is required to be proved by the prosecution is that there was a demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant and that pursuant to the said demand, bribe amount was accepted by the accused. To prove this case it was not necessary for the court to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness. Neither Respondent 2 in his application nor the Court in the impugned judgement has specified the reason as to why and how examination of Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness is necessary. 20. If this is the approach to be made while deciding an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court fails to understand as to how the evidence of Smt, Ruchi Saxena was relevant in the instant case and why direction should be given to examine her as a court witness, as she was neither present at the time when the bribe was demanded or even at the time when the trap was arranged and laid. Without examining the relevance of evidence, which may be tendered by Smt. Ruchi Saxena or the necessity of examining her as a court witness or examining the question of prejudice if at all which is likely to be caused to the defence, if she is not examined, the High Court has directed the learned Special Judge to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness. There is no manner of doubt that the power under section 311 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was exercised arbitrarily and, therefore, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside. GURDEEP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 15. In the alternative, even assuming that no statements of PWs 2 and 3 had been recorded under section 161 Cr.PC, this factor destroys the substratum of the prosecution story in a far greater measure as it must then be taken that their statements were being recorded for the first time in court which would rob them of much of their evidentiary value. In this case, we find that the two witnesses are none other than the brother and the father of the deceased.." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Before dealing with the submissions made at bar, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgments cited above. In Vijay Kumar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 17 observed that section 311 Cr.PC of the Central Code, which is in para materia with section 540 of the State Cr.PC, confers vast discretion on the Court and is expressed in the widest possible terms. It is further observed that the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked for meeting the ends of justice. The apex Court has further observed that discretionary powers conferred u/s 311 Cr.PC has to be exercised judicially for the reasons stated by the Court and not arbitrarily and capriciously. At paragraph 20 of the Vijay Kumar's case, the apex Court observed that Smt. Ruchi Saxena, who was ordered to be summoned as Court witness in exercise of powers conferred u/s 311 Cr.PC, was neither present at the time when the bribe was demanded nor at the time when the trap was arranged and laid. In Gurdeep Singh's case, the appellant was convicted for having committed offences u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC. His co-accused was acquitted by the trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the facts of the said case at paragraph 15 observed that the statement of the prosecution witnesses 2&3 were not recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC and this factor destroys the substratum of the prosecution story in a far greater measure as it must be taken that their statements were being recorded for the first time in the Court which would 'rob them of much of their evidentiary value.' The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that these two witnesses were none other than the father and brother of the deceased. 6. Reverting to the facts of this case, what appears is that the mother of the deceased was, allegedly, killed by the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial of the case who, in their statements, deposed that Mst. Asifa Hamid and Mst. 6. Reverting to the facts of this case, what appears is that the mother of the deceased was, allegedly, killed by the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial of the case who, in their statements, deposed that Mst. Asifa Hamid and Mst. Razia Hamid, daughters of the deceased, were present when the alleged occurrence took place, thus, were eye witnesses in the case. It is for this reason that after making of the statements by the prosecution witnesses, an application was filed wherein prayer was made for summoning of these two witnesses and recording their statements. 7. The primary and fundamental duty of the Court of law is to enquire and investigate the matter in a fair, reasonable and impartial manner so as to unveil the truth. The Court of law, in order to reach to a lawful and just conclusion in a matter, has to follow the procedure provided for the said purpose. Section 540, which is reproduced hereinafter, is enacted by the legislatures to ensure that in the event, during the trial of a case, it is found that evidence of some of the witnesses is necessary for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion, then the court shall summon such witnesses. In criminal justice system, it is the duty of the Court of law to ensure that justice is meted out to the parties, which otherwise would mean that an innocent person shall go unpunished and the person, against whom guilt is proved beyond any shadow of doubt, shall suffer for his/her criminal act. For discharging this fundamental duty, the Courts can exercise powers, in appropriate cases, conferred upon it by section 540 Cr.PC. "540. 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 re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case." 8. The evidence of Mst. Asifa Hamid and Mst. The evidence of Mst. Asifa Hamid and Mst. Razia Hamid, in view of the facts unfolded in this order, appears to be necessary to enable the learned trial court to come to a just and lawful conclusion in the matter. It has been stated by other prosecution witnesses that they (daughters of the deceased) were present on spot when the alleged occurrence took place and when their mother was, allegedly, killed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that Vijay Kumar's case, cited above, does lend support to the aforementioned reasoning of the court. In that case, Smt. Ruchi Saxena was ordered to be summoned for ascertaining as to whether her evidence would be of any consequence. It was found that she was neither present at the time when the bribe was demanded and was also not present when the trap was arranged and laid. Her summoning for being examined as the Court witness, in these circumstances, was held to be not necessary and the order, where under she was summoned, was, thus, set aside. In Gurdeep Singh's case aforementioned, after the appellant therein was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, the matter had reached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was examining the legality of the judgements of the Courts below and while considering the facts of the case, it was observed that as the statements of the prosecution witnesses 2&3 were not recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC and their statements were recorded for the first time in the Court, same would rob them of much of their evidentiary value. The apex Court has not discarded their evidence for the reason that they were not examined u/s 161 Cr.PC and, thus, cannot be summoned as witnesses. The Court, in fact, assessed the probative value of their evidence. The judgement does not lay proposition of law that a person, who is not examined during the investigation of the case and whose statement has not been recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, cannot be summoned as a witness by the Court in exercise of powers conferred u/s 540 Cr.PC. The probative alue of evidence of such witnesses has to be seen by the trial court at the time of conclusion of the trial. 9. For the above stated reasons, this petition, being meritless, is dismissed along with CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.