THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2848 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is directed against the order dated 20.04.2009, in CrL.M.P.No.52 of 2008 in C.C.No.554 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Rangareddy District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of summons of one Vaman Rao as an additional witness, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the respondents alleging the offence under Section 494 IPC. According to the petitioner-complainant, her husband-1st respondent has entered into second marriage with one Hemalatha-A2 and the same was performed at Venkateswara temple of Chevella on 13.05.2004. The trial has reached the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2008 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to examine one Vaman Rao, who is said to be the priest, who conducted the alleged second marriage of A1 with A2 and he is also stated to be maintaining record of marriages performed in the temple. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage when the matter has reached the stage of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also that the name of the said proposed additional witness was not cited in the complaint originally, but was later added in manuscript in the list of witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that either in the original complaint or in the copies furnished to the accused, the name of the proposed witness-Vaman Rao was not cited and his name appears to have been entered by way of manuscript in the list of witnesses appended to the complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would, on the other hand, contend that the name of the proposed witness was mentioned in the complaint even at the time of filing the same but the correction was not carried out in the copies by inadvertence. 6. The question as to whether or not the name of the proposed witness-Vaman Rao is mentioned in the complaint even at the time of filing the complaint or whether it was subsequently added cannot be gone into in the present proceedings and it is open to the trial Court to consider that aspect during the course of trial. However, the fact remains that Section 311 Cr.P.C. enables the Court to examine anyone as additional evidence at any stage of the proceedings by issuing summons if his evidence appears to be essential to the justification of the case. Thus, the requirement under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permitting examination of an additional witness is to consider whether the evidence of the said witness is essential for a just decision in the case. If it is found that the evidence of the proposed witness would help the Court in arriving at a just decision, such witness can be examined at any stage of the proceedings and the fact that his name was not mentioned in the complaint is immaterial. It is well settled that the names of all the witnesses need not be mentioned in the plaint. The Court has got ample power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to permit the examination of any person as an additional witness at any time if the evidence of such person is required for a just decision of the case. The proposed witness-Vaman Rao is said to be the priest of the temple, who has officiated at the alleged second marriage of A2 and he is stated to be maintaining the record of marriages performed in the temple. His evidence would therefore certainly help the Court in arriving at a just decision in the matter. Respondent-accused will have the opportunity to cross-examine the said witness and therefore no prejudice would be caused to him. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the application for issuance of summons to the proposed witness-Vaman Rao, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2008 stands allowed and the complainant is permitted to examine the proposed witness-Vaman Rao by seeking summons for his attendance before the Court. 8. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd December, 2011. Tsy