JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Session Trial No. 211/2013, whereby application preferred under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecution was allowed and the prosecution was permitted to produce evidence to prove registered sale deed Ex. P-29 by calling concerning Registrar. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is at fag end. Evidence of defence witnesses has been recorded and therefore at this stage prosecution cannot be allowed to produce further evidence to fill up lacuna. 4. On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, that impugned order passed by the learned trial court is well merited and no interference in it is called for. Power given under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and the same has been invoked to meet the ends of justice. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, entire record has been perused. 6. One written complaint was filed on 27.09.2010 by complainant Shiva Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti (for brevity "the Samiti) through its President Mr. Vinod Singh. Allegations were made to the effect that one sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant-Samiti, and thereafter by playing fraud again on the same land names of wife and children were got mutated in the concerning revenue papers by the accused/petitioner. Offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC was registered. 7. Admittedly, defence witness Arvind Kumar Agrawal (DW-1) was examined meaning thereby the trial is at fag end. Vinod Singh (PW-4) examined on behalf of the complainant Samiti deposed the facts as mentioned in the FIR but in cross-examination fact of execution of sale-deed was denied by putting relevant questions. When the evidence of defence witness Arvind Kumar Agrawal (DW-1) was recorded, on the same day i.e. on 09.12.2013, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to call the witness to prove the registered sale-deed. In the impugned order, it was mentioned and observed by the trial court that examination of in-charge-Registrar is necessary for just decision of the case. 8. Relevant provisions contained under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as under: 311. In the impugned order, it was mentioned and observed by the trial court that examination of in-charge-Registrar is necessary for just decision of the case. 8. Relevant provisions contained under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as under: 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 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 to be essential to the just decision of the case. 9. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that at any stage of trial any witness can be summoned by the court meaning thereby even if trial is at the fag end in that case also if the Court finds that evidence of witness is essential for just decision of the case then in that situation, court can summon the witness. 10. The factum of sale-deed has not arisen for the first time at this stage but from very beginning in the FIR this fact was mentioned, therefore, in the opinion of this Court if the called witness is examined in that situation accused will not be prejudiced but on the contrary ample opportunity would remain with him to cross-examine the witness. 11. In the aforesaid premises, in the opinion of this Court, the order in question passed by the trial court will well merited and no interference is called for in it. 12. Revision being sans substratum is hereby dismissed with liberty that the petitioner/accused, if desires so, may further produce defence witness.