Order : Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the sole petitioner, Gaju Prasad Mehta has questioned the legality of the order dated 04.05.2016 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. Case no. 18(A) of 2009(R), whereby and where under petition filed by the petitioner to direct the prosecution to produce the witnesses has been rejected. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the fact which is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue involved in this revision application, in short, is that after examination of prosecution and defence witnesses, the accused-petitioner, Gajo Prasad Mehta filed a petition on 11.04.2016 under section 311 of the Code for recall and cross-examination of the three prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Narayan Singh (P.W.9) R.K. Prasad (P.W.11) and Dilip Lahoti (P.W.2) for their further cross-examination. After hearing both the parties, the aforesaid petition was allowed by order dated 11.04.2016 and the defence was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- in advance and get received Dasti Summon and produce witnesses on 20.04.2016. 3. In compliance of the said direction, the defence deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- on 25.04.2016, but he refused to accept Dasti Summon as it was the duty of the prosecution to produce their witnesses. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 02.5.2016. On 04.05.2016, a petition was again filed on behalf of the petitioner to direct the prosecution to produce the above said witnesses in court for their cross-examination on the ground that it was not possible for him to receive the Dasti Summon and that as directed he has deposited the cost for the same. But the said petition was rejected by order impugned, as indicated above. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned, as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that though his prayer is now confined for recall and cross-examination of two witnesses, namely, Dilip Lahoti (P.W.2) and Ram Narayan Singh (P.W.9), but merely because petitioner refused to accept Dasti Summon, for service on those two witnesses, impugned order was passed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned, as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that though his prayer is now confined for recall and cross-examination of two witnesses, namely, Dilip Lahoti (P.W.2) and Ram Narayan Singh (P.W.9), but merely because petitioner refused to accept Dasti Summon, for service on those two witnesses, impugned order was passed. It was also submitted that subsequent to the order passed on 11.04.2016, one of the witnesses namely, R.K. Prasad (P.W.11) was produced in court on 02.05.2016 and he was cross-examined and subsequently he was discharged, that is why petitioner has confined his prayer for recall and cross-examination of other two witnesses, namely, namely, Dilip Lahoti (P.W.2) and Ram Narayan Singh (P.W.9) only. But the court below erred in compelling the accused to accept Dasti Summon for service of summons of court for their recall, rather it was the duty of the prosecution to call his witnesses. 5. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I supported the impugned order and seriously contended that the only intention of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of the case and for that he has filed several petitions on different dates and that a direction was given to the petitioner by the Court to accept Dasti Summon on behalf of those witnesses but the petitioner refused to accept the same. It was also submitted that though prosecution has examined those witnesses but they are not the C.B.I officers, rather one of them is an employee of Road Construction Department and another is a private person. Hence, the court has rightly directed the petitioner to accept the Dasti Summon to bring those witnesses for their cross-examination in court. 6. I have gone through the impugned order dated 04.5.2016 and the earlier order dated 11.04.2016 and I find that in the earlier order dated 11.04.2016 the court while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under section 311 of the Code directed him to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000/- along with a direction to accept the Dasti Summon for production of those witnesses. So far, imposition of cost is concerned, it is very clear from the order impugned that petitioner has deposited the amount as directed earlier by the court below, but the direction of the court to accept Dasti Summon by the accused-petitioner to produce the prosecution witnesses is not correct. So far, imposition of cost is concerned, it is very clear from the order impugned that petitioner has deposited the amount as directed earlier by the court below, but the direction of the court to accept Dasti Summon by the accused-petitioner to produce the prosecution witnesses is not correct. It appears that the court had allowed the petition filed under section 311 of the Code for cross-examination of three above witnesses, in my opinion, it was the duty of the court to direct the prosecution to bring the witnesses in court for their cross-examination and that burden can not be shifted on the shoulder of the defence. Apparently, the observation of the court below that inspite of repeated directions accused has not accepted Dasti Summon, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In view of the discussions made above, this revision application is, hereby, allowed with a direction to the court concerned to direct the C.B.I the prosecution to produce two witnesses, namely, Dilip Lahoti (P.W.2) and Ram Narayan Singh (P.W.9) for their further cross-examination on the date fixed with the consent of both the parties. 8. Office is directed to handover a copy of this order to Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I for its onward communication to the appropriate authority. Revision allowed.