ORDER : 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 17.03.2021, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 540 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examining two prosecution witnesses. 2. Before coming to the impugned order, it would be apt to refer to the facts leading to passing of the impugned order. It appears that the respondent is facing trial for offences under Section 302, 364, 201 RPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 135/2014 registered with Police Station Awantipora. The trial is pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Pulwama. The case pertains to murder of one Firdous Ahmad Hurrah who is alleged to have been kidnapped and murdered by the accused, whereafter his dead body was recovered from river Jehlum. It appears that prosecution evidence was closed by the trial Court, whereafter statements of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The accused, it appears, have chosen not to produce any evidence in defence and the case has been set down for final hearing. At this stage the prosecution made an application before the learned trial Court seeking permission to summon and examine two prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Mohammad Anwar, ASI and PW-39 Captain Sandeep of 55 RR Camp Pulwama. The said application has been declined by the learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order by observing that evidence of prosecution stands already closed and the said order has not been challenged. Allowing the application for summoning and examining the prosecution witnesses would amount to reviewing of order which is not permissible under law. 3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the order impugned is not in accordance with law as the trial Court has power under Section 540 Cr.P.C. to summon and examine or recall any witness at any stage of the proceedings. It is urged that the observation of the learned trial Court, that after closure of evidence of prosecution this power cannot be exercised, is not in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. It is urged that the observation of the learned trial Court, that after closure of evidence of prosecution this power cannot be exercised, is not in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. Before coming to the merits of the petition and before testing the legality of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, it would be apt to notice the provisions contained in Section 540 of the J&K Criminal Procedure Code. 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 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 essential to the just decision of the case.” 6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that there is no limitation on the power of the Court at any stage to which the trial may have reached from summoning and examining any witness. The expressions used in the provision are “any person and at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings” which means that the Court has unfettered powers to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 540 of J&K Cr.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings, even after the conclusion of the trial before passing of the final judgment. The proceedings come to an end only after the judgment is pronounced. The aforesaid provision is in two parts. The first part is discretionary in nature, whereas the second part is mandatory in nature. Thus, a Court may, in its discretion, summon and examine any person as a witness who has not been summoned as a witness or recall/re-examine any person already examined and in case evidence of such person appears to the Court essential to the just decision of the case, it is the bounden duty of the Court to exercise its power under this provision. The object underlying Section 540 of Cr.P.C. is that there should be no failure of justice due to mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record. 7. The object underlying Section 540 of Cr.P.C. is that there should be no failure of justice due to mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Swapana Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 has, while interpreting the provisions contained in Section 311 of Cr.P.C. which is in pari materia with Section 540 of J&K Cr.P.C. , observed as under: “10. The first part of this Section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for reexamination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.” 8. From the foregoing enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that the provisions contained in Section 540 of Cr.P.C. aim at strengthening the arms of a Court in its quest for discovery of truth. While deciding a prayer for examination of a witness or recall of a person as a witness, the Court has to form an opinion whether his statement is essential for just decision of the case and whether it would lead to discovery of truth. While deciding a prayer for examination of a witness or recall of a person as a witness, the Court has to form an opinion whether his statement is essential for just decision of the case and whether it would lead to discovery of truth. However, the Court has to be alive to the fact that its jurisdiction should not be invoked or exercised for filling up the lacunae in the case of the prosecution or defence, as the case may be. Whether summoning and examination of a witness is for filling up a lacuna or it is for just decision of the case depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, let us now advert to the facts of the present case. 10. Through the medium of application which the prosecution has filed before the trial Court, permission was sought for summoning and examination of two witnesses, PW 1 Mohammad Anwar and PW 39 Captain Sandeep of 55 RR Camp. According to the prosecution both these witnesses are material witnesses. It is averred that PW-1 ASI Mohammad Anwar has conducted proceedings under Section 174 J&K Cr.P.C. and he is witness to retrieving of dead body, its seizure and its identification. He has also recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling on the fateful day. Similarly, PW-39, Captain Sandeep of 55 RR is the witness to the last seen circumstance. Both these witnesses have been cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan but because the evidence of prosecution was closed by the trial Court, their statements could not be recorded. 11. The learned trial Court while declining the prayer of the petitioner has observed that after closure of evidence of the prosecution the power under Section 540 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised, as it would amount to review of order of closure of evidence. The aforesaid observation of the learned trial Court is not in accordance with law. As already noted, the power under Section 540 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised by a Court at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court, that after closure of prosecution evidence the said process cannot be exercised, is not legally tenable. 12. As already noted, the power under Section 540 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised by a Court at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court, that after closure of prosecution evidence the said process cannot be exercised, is not legally tenable. 12. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has nowhere stated that the evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution is not relevant or the same is not essential for just decision of the case. Without recording any finding on these two material aspects, the learned trial Court has proceeded to reject the application of the prosecution on extraneous grounds which is not legally sustainable. While dealing with the application of the prosecution, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to address the issue on the touch stone of the principles governing grant or refusal of an application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. as have been discussed hereinbefore. 13. In the instant case, as already noted, the statements of both the prosecution witnesses sought to be produced by the petitioner are essential for just decision of the case and such important evidence of the prosecution cannot be foreclosed in a heinous offence like murder. 14. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law and the same, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to summon and examine the above named two witnesses and conclude the trial of the case expeditiously, preferably with a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the trial Court. The prosecution is directed to extend all necessary cooperation to the trial Court in this regard. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for information and compliance.