JUDGMENT : VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, J. 1. The petition has been preferred against order dated 08.09.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Srimahaveer Ji, (Karauli) passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 194/2003, where by application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. preferred by Assistant Public Prosecutor has been allowed. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioners were facing trial in Session’s Case No. 53/2001 (37/98) before Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract) Hindaun for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. During trial, they were in judicial custody, wherefrom they were taken on 10.01.1998 by police guards to the hospital for treatment. But from hospital both these petitioners fled away. As a result, FIR No. 39/98 for offences under Sections 224 and 223 IPC against the petitioners was registered at Police Station Hindaun City. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed. After trial, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hindaun City vide its judgment dated 21.01.2003 convicted and sentenced both of them for offence under section 224 IPC. On appeal, registered as Regular Criminal Appeal No. 3/2003, Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun vide judgment dated 25.02.2003 set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners and remitted back the matter to trial court with direction that this case be get transferred to some other court and the latter court would, while keeping in view the observations made in appeal, read over the accusation to the petitioners and rehear the matter as per law, and dispose it of. The learned Appellate Court in its judgment dated 25.02.2003 observed that in the instant matter the magistrate by whose order the petitioners were in judicial custody, on 10.01.1998, should have been examined and if the charge-sheet after investigation has been preferred in the court of same magistrate, then the case should have been get transferred to some other magistrate. 3. The learned Appellate Court in its judgment dated 25.02.2003 observed that in the instant matter the magistrate by whose order the petitioners were in judicial custody, on 10.01.1998, should have been examined and if the charge-sheet after investigation has been preferred in the court of same magistrate, then the case should have been get transferred to some other magistrate. 3. During rehearing of the case against petitioners for offences under Section 224 and 223 IPC which was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 194/2003, Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted an application on 25.06.2012 to the effect that in view of observations made by the Appellate Court, warrant of judicial custody of petitioners whereby they were remanded to the judicial custody by the concerned magistrate, of the date of occurrence, be called from the case file of offence under Section 302 IPC and also prayed to find out the name of the magistrate by whose order the petitioners were sent to the judicial custody. This application was vehemently opposed by the petitioners. Despite, vide impugned order learned trial court, considering the observations made by the appellate court while remanding the matter, allowed the application. 4. I have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. 5. Section 311Cr. P.C. reads as follows:- 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 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 to be essential to the just decision of the case. Bare reading of Section 311 reveals that it empowers the Court to call or summon any person as a witness or examine any witness in attendance, or recall and re-examine any person provided his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Section 311 does not empower the court to call any record or to make investigation to determine name of a witness for prosecution. In the instant matter, learned trial court has erred in summoning the record of other court just to ascertain the name of a witness for prosecution. Section 311 does not empower the court to call any record or to make investigation to determine name of a witness for prosecution. In the instant matter, learned trial court has erred in summoning the record of other court just to ascertain the name of a witness for prosecution. It is well-settled law that power under Section 311 does not contemplate any power to fill up the lacuna left by prosecution. The matter was remitted back in the year 2003. But after lapse of 10 years the prosecution awaken out of slumber and learned trial court has also obliged it by acceding to the request. It was the duty of the prosecution to ascertain the name and produce the witness it wanted to rely upon. It is the duty of the police to investigate the matter properly and collect all possible evidence prior to filing a charge-sheet. It is a glaring example of abuse of process of court and a fit case to exercise the inherent powers vested in this Court by Section 482 Cr. P.C. In the result the petition is allowed. Order dated 08.09.2013 passed by learned Magistrate is set aside. The petition is disposed of accordingly.