JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Revisionist Davendra Singh alias Pintoo Baba filed this criminal revision for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Dilbag Singh and others, arising out of first information report no. 349 of 2009, PS Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 147/148/149/307/504/506 and 349 IPC. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that summoning of an unknown person, named as Pooran Singh s/o Yara Singh by the Court below is improper. It is submitted that the person, who has been summoned as witness by the trial court is not mentioned as a witness in the charge-sheet. Statement of such a witness was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that the parentage of aforesaid Pooran Singh was not disclosed by the complainant in the first information report. In a nutshell, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a stranger can not be a witness in a case. The whereabouts of such a witness were neither disclosed by the prosecution at the time of investigation, nor at the time of filing of charge-sheet. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, in as much as, Pooran Singh was cited as a witness in the charge-sheet, albeit, his parentage was not mentioned. While opposing the revision vehemently, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that Pooran Singh was not a stranger to the case, for his name was mentioned by the Investigating Officer as one of the witnesses. If the parentage of Pooran Singh was not disclosed, that itself nowhere suggests that said Pooran Singh was not present at the place of incident and did not see the occurrence. It is further submitted that Pooran Singh s/o Yara Singh is an injured witness and his medical report (paper no. 8-ka/12) is already on record. The name of Pooran Singh was cited by the informant in the first information report itself and even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that the statement of Pooran Singh was not recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that fact alone does not prevent the trial court from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 311Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist advanced one more argument that the names of other witnesses who were present at the time of incident, were mentioned in the charge-sheet, but the prosecution did not examine those witnesses before the trial court. Learned Deputy Advocate General countered the argument by submitting that it depends upon the wisdom and discretion of the prosecuting officer (DGC or ADGC), to examine any number of witnesses before the trial court. It is the quality of evidence which matters and not the quantity of evidence. It is the discretion of the prosecuting agency to produce any witness or withhold any witness, as it deems fit, from examining before the trial court. 5. It is clearly manifested from the scheme of Section 311 Cr.P.C. that the Court may summon any person as witness during the course of trial, though not summoned as witness. In other words, the Court has been empowered to summon any person as a witness at any stage of trial. Although the discretion vested in the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judicially, it is settled in law that the Court can call a witness not only on the motion of either prosecution or the defence, but also can do so on its own motion, if the conditions given in Section 311 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. In the instant case, the name of Pooran Singh was cited in the first information report, although his parentage was not given. PW 1 Swayamber Singh, in the course of his examination-in-chief, said about the presence of Pooran Singh. PW 1, in the course of cross-examination, said that Pooran Singh was present with him (PW 1 Swayamber Singh) when the incident took place. Injured Pooran Singh was taken to hospital on motorcycle by PW 1. The injury report of injured Pooran Singh was also brought on record. In the circumstances, witness Pooran Singh cannot be termed as a ‘stranger’, if, somehow, his parentage was not inadvertently brought on record. If Pooran Singh is permitted to be examined as prosecution witness, it is open to the learned counsel for the accused persons to have cross-examined such a witness. What is the parentage of Pooran Singh, was he present on the place of incident or not, whether his statement under Section 161 Cr. If Pooran Singh is permitted to be examined as prosecution witness, it is open to the learned counsel for the accused persons to have cross-examined such a witness. What is the parentage of Pooran Singh, was he present on the place of incident or not, whether his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer or not, whether Pooran Singh was really injured or not – there are some of the aspects of the prosecution story, which could be thrashed out by the accused persons in the course of cross-examination of Pooran Singh. Why the statement of Pooran Singh was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., this question may be asked from the Investigating Officer of the case. 6. Finally, it is for the learned trial court to appreciate the evidence which is brought on record by the prosecution. The finality of the matter will rest upon the wisdom of trial court as to how it evaluates the evidence of Pooran Singh and other witnesses. No harm will be caused if the evidence of Pooran Singh is permitted to be brought on record. There is no illegality in the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur. Learned Court below has not only discussed the rulings cited on behalf of the parties, but has also decided the matter in right perspective. 7. Thus this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by learned trial court. The revision filed by the accused-revisionist Davendra Singh against the order, whereby Pooran Singh s/o Yara Singh was summoned as a witness, is hereby dismissed.