JUDGMENT (ORAL) By this order, two petitions, one challenging the order dated 21.12.2019, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, whereby the application filed by respondent State under Section 540 Cr. P. C has been allowed and the other challenging the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the same Court, whereby the application of respondent under Section 540 Cr. P. C has been partly allowed, are proposed to be disposed of. It is pertinent to mention here that both the orders under challenge have been passed in the same case titled State vs. Ghulam Nabi Bhat (FIR No.14 of 2013 for offence under Section 302 RPC of Police Station, Mattan). 2) Vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2019, the learned trial court has, while considering the application of prosecution for summoning and examining the Investigating Officer as a witness, permitted the prosecution to do so and it has been further directed that only three opportunities shall be given to the prosecution for the purpose and in case it fails to do so, the evidence of the prosecution shall be deemed to have been closed. 3) It has been contended in the petition that the prosecution is un- necessarily delaying the matter and when the matter had reached final hearing, it has moved the application just to fill up the drawbacks and lacunae. 4) Section 540 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Court to summon the material witnesses or examine a person present. It reads as under: “540.Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings 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 essential to the just decision of the case.” 5) From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that at any stage of enquiry trial or other proceedings, the Court has discretion to summon any person as a witness or to re-call and re-examine any person already examined. In fact, the second part of the provision casts a duty upon the Court to summon and examine or re-call and re- examine any such person if it appears to the Court that his evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. So even if a case is at final hearing stage and the Court feels that the evidence of a person is essential to the just decision of the case, it is the duty of the Court to examine or re-call and re-examine such person. It is the statutory function of the Court to dispense justice and to achieve this objective, the Court is well within its jurisdiction to examine or recall and re- examine a person. 6) So far as the case at hand is concerned, the prosecution is seeking to examine the Investigating Officer of the case. Investigating Officer is the architect of a case and as such one of the most important witnesses. A Court has to make every endeavour to examine all the important witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The Court cannot remain as a mute spectator and wait for the prosecution to produce its witnesses. The Court has to play an active role in ensuring that truth is unraveled and if it requires the summoning and examination of an important witness at any stage of the proceedings, it has no option but to summon and examine such a witness. 7) In the instant case, the learned trial court has exactly done what is expected of a criminal court, particularly in a murder case. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned trial court. 8) Coming to the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the learned trial court, which is impugned in CRMC No.310/2018, vide the said order the learned trial court has partly allowed the application of the prosecution filed under Section 540 of Cr. P. C. The trial court has allowed the prosecution to summon and examine one Fazil Ahmad Bhat S/o Mohammad Shafi Bhat R/o Mal Akad as a witness but it has disallowed re-examination of PW (1). The prosecution has not challenged this order, so the Court is concerned with that part of the impugned order which relates to grant of permission to examine the witness Fazil Ahmad Bhat. The prosecution has not challenged this order, so the Court is concerned with that part of the impugned order which relates to grant of permission to examine the witness Fazil Ahmad Bhat. 9) It has been noted in the impugned order that PW(1) in her statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C has deposed that at the time of occurrence she was accompanied by her brother Fazil Ahmad Bhat but he has not been cited as a prosecution witness. In fact, in her statement recorded before the trial court during the trial of the case, PW(1) has stated that she narrated to her brother that the accused had killed their father. Thus having regard to the statement of PW(1) recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C and during the trial of the case, it becomes clear that the witness sought to be examined by the prosecution, namely, Fazil Ahmad Bhat, appears to be having knowledge about the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The statement of the said person, therefore, appears to be relevant to the decision of the case. Thus the permission granted by the learned trial court vide the impugned order to examine the said person cannot be found fault with. 10) For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions, one challenging order dated 21.12.2019 and other challenging order dated 27.06.2018 are bereft of merit and deserve to be dismissed. The same are, accordingly, dismissed. 11) Since the trial of the case is going on for the last more than seven years, therefore, the learned trial court shall take urgent steps to conclude the trial of the case preferably within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is made available to it. 12) Record of the trial court along with copy of this order be sent back.