CRLR No. 171 of 2009 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist and Shri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for State, are present. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision is directed against the order dated 06.10.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Sessions Trial No. 404 of 2008, State Vs. Sat Kumar, relating to offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the revisionist (accused) moved an application 36-B under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to summon two witnesses, one a technical Inspection Expert and another a Medical Officer in the aforesaid case. The trial court has rejected said application on the ground that after close of the prosecution evidence, on the application of the accused, no prosecution witnesses can be examined. The trial court has further observed that the witnesses can be examined at the time when accused is given opportunity to produce evidence in defence. In the circumstances, the order passed by the trial court, in the opinion of this Court, does not suffer from any illegality. This Court, agrees with the trial court that no prejudice is caused to the revisionist as he is at liberty to produce the two witnesses in defence, during the trial. It is clear from the record that prosecution evidence is already closed and statement of accused has already been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. For the reasons, as discussed above, this revision is dismissed with the observation that the revisionist (accused) shall be at liberty to adduce the evidence of the witnesses, to be produced by the defence. Dt. 15.03.2010 (P. C. P., J.) S