ORDER : Ravi Nath Verma, J. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the two petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 132 of 2007 whereby and where under the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 311 of the Code has been partly allowed so far cross-examination of the informant is concerned, but the prayer to further cross-examine the I.O. has been disallowed. 2. Heard the petitioner No. 1 Satyadeo Ram Dnagi @ Satyadeo Mahto, who has appeared in person and learned counsel representing the State. 3. It appears from the record that after examination of the prosecution witnesses, the petition under Section 311 of the Code was filed by the petitioners to recall the informant Sarju Mahato and Investigating Officer of the case Dinesh Thakur for their further cross-examination on the ground that there was no cross-examination of the informant from the defence side rather the same was done by the Presiding Officer in absence of the petitioners and proper opportunity was not provided to the petitioners to cross-examine the Investigating Officer though for the ends of justice, their cross-examination is necessary. 4. After filing of the said petition by the petitioners in court below, the concerned court directed the petitioners to put forward the point wise questions upon which the informant and I.O. have to be cross-examined and, accordingly, a set of questions was provided to the court, which is at page-88 of this revision application. 5. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, submitted that though by the order impugned, an opportunity has been given to the petitioners to further cross-examine the informant on the set of question on which the court will agree but the court has not disclosed on which question, the court will give its consent to cross-examine the informant and the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer has been denied by the court below without assigning any cogent reason. It was also submitted that in the interest of justice, the cross-examination of informant as well as the I.O. is necessary. It was also submitted that in the interest of justice, the cross-examination of informant as well as the I.O. is necessary. It was also submitted that the petitioner will not ask any question other than the set of questionnaire given in the court below, which is presently at the page No. 88 of this revision application and they are 14 in numbers and the cross-examination of the informant will be confined to these 14 questions only. It was also submitted that even the I.O. was not cross-examined on the contradictions and omissions of the prosecution witnesses and the petitioners assure the Court that they will not take more than a single day for each witness i.e. two days in totality in cross-examination of the informant as well as the Investigating Officer. 6. Learned counsel appearing suo moto for the informant fairly submitted that he has no objection if the cross-examination of the informant is confined to the 14 questions as placed at page-88 of this revision application and he has also no objection if the I.O. is re-called for his cross-examination. 7. The very object of Section 311 of the Code is to bring on record evidence not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of orderly society and in the interest of justice. It is true that Section 311 of the Code is wholly discretionary but the second part of it imposes upon the trial court an obligation; it is, that the court shall summon and examine all persons whose evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. There may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the Court of summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power, the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind. 8. From the order impugned, it is apparently clear that the cross-examination of the informant has been allowed by the court below on the question of point on which the court will agree. 8. From the order impugned, it is apparently clear that the cross-examination of the informant has been allowed by the court below on the question of point on which the court will agree. The petitioners had given a set of questionnaire of 14 questions, which is mentioned at page-88 of this revision application, and has assured this Court to confine his cross-examination on those 14 questions only. 9. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances discussed above, the order impugned dated 19.11.2014 is set aside. The court below is directed to provide one opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the informant on those 14 questions and for that, the court below is directed to summon the informant. Similarly, the court is directed to summon the Investigating Officer of the case for his further cross-examination but the court will not provide the petitioners more than a single day for cross-examination of each of the witness. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this criminal revision application is, hereby, allowed. Application allowed.