Arun Madan, J. - (1.) The short question which has been raised in this revision petition is as to whether the trial court was justified in summoning the doctor, who had prepared the injury report of the injured Majru and Anil, whose names were not mentioned in the list of witnesses cited by the prosecution out of which name of Vivekanand was mentioned in the list of witnesses and he has been examined. The only doctor who had to be examined was Dr. Rakesh Natani, who had prepared the operation notes of injured Anil Kumar vide Exp. 35. As per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the court has ample power to call the witnesses for examination if the ends of justice so demands. Section 311 of the Code stipulates as under: "311. Power to summon material witnesses, 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."
(2.) I am of the view that the trial court was fully justified in summoning the Doctor Rakesh Nathani, who had prepared the operation notes of the injured Anil Kumar. An objection has been raised that it was not permissible for the trial court to direct the examination of the aforesaid witnesses. I am of the view that the said contention is wholly untenable and it cannot be construed as a lacuna earlier left out by the prosecution which it intends to fill up by examining the said doctor at a later stage and hence it cannot be said to be an exercise in futility. I may further observe that in an appropriate case, the court has suo-motu powers to summon any witness where examination is very material to the case, if the interest of justice so demands. The ruling cited by the learned counsel reported in 1987 RCC 345 Kanhaiya Lal v. State does not help in advancing the case of the petitioner in any manner since in that matter, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was invoked at a stage when the trial which was proceeding leisurely had concluded which is not the position herein..
(3.) The case has been pending trial before the learned Special Judge, Communal Riot Court, Tonk since 1991. It is directed that the trial may be conducted expeditiously and may be concluded within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.;