Summarize the following court judgment. iminal Appeal No. 88 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 30	 1961	 of the Calcutta High Court in Cr. R. No. 1117 of 1961. D. R. Prem	 R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar	 for the appellant. A. section R. Chari	 Ravinder Narain	 J. B. Dadachanji and 0. C. Mathur	 for the respondent. September 11. The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR	 J. The principal point which the appellant	 the State of West Bengal	 has raised for our decision in the present appeal	 is whether the provisions of section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to a case tried by the Magistrate under section 207A of the Code. That question arises in this way. On the 7th July	 1960	 a charge sheet was submitted under section 173 of the Code by Inspector Bhuromal of the Special Police Establishment	 New Delhi	 in the Court of the Chief Presidency 'Magistrate	 Calcutta	 against Hari Das Mundhra	 accused No. 1	 and the respondent Tulsidas Mundhra	 accused No. 2	 under section 12OB/409 and sections 409 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code. On the 5th August	 1960	 both the accused persons appeared before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and furnished bail. Thereafter	 the case was transferred to M. Roy	 the Presidency Magistrate 5th Court for further proceedings. On the 10th October	 1960	 copies of the documents were furnished to the accused persons	 and since the record was voluminous	 the hearing of the case was adjourned to the 7th December	 1960. On the 1st March	 1961 parties were heard and in view of the nature of the offences and the amounts involved	 3 the Magistrate took the view that the proper course to follow would be to adopt the commitment proceedings as laid down in section 207A of the Code. Subsequently	 the procedure prescribed by the said section was followed. It appears that accused No. 1 who had in the meanwhile been	 convicted in another case was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in the District jail at Kanpur and so	 he could not be produced before the Magistrate until the 7th July	 1961. That is why the case had to be adjourned on some occasions and effective hearings did not make a material progress until the 7th July. On the 6th July	 1961	 the respondent filed a petition before the Magistrate alleging that amongst the documentary evidence sought to be relied upon against him by the prosecution were included three cheques and the prosecution case was that the writing on the cheques was in the handwriting of the respondent. The respondent disputed this allegation Pan prayed that he should be allowed an opportunity to examine defence witnesses to prove that the impugned handwriting was not his. On the 7th July	 1961	 when the case was taken up for hearing before the Magistrate	 he first considered the application made by the respondent to call defence witnesses and on the merits	 he rejected the said application. Then he proceeded to make an order of commitment. In rejecting the application of the respondent for examining defence witnesses	 the Magistrate took into account the fact that the application had been deliberately made at a very late stage in order to prolong the proceedings in his Court and so	 that was one reason why he thought that an unconsciousably delayed petition which had been made solely with the object of gaining time should not be granted. He also held that the application was misconceived. It was urged before the Magistrate that he could examine the said witnesses and in support of this argument	 reliance was placed on a 4 decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arunachalam Swami vs State of Bombay (1). The learned Magistrate took the view that the said decision was distinguishable on facts. Whilst the learned Magistrate was delivering this order	 an application was made before him that the respondent wanted to move the higher Court for a transfer of the case	 and though the learned Magistrate felt that this application also was intended merely to prolong the proceedings in his Court	 he adjourned the case because under section 526(8) it was obligatory on him to do so. That is why he adjourned the hearing of the case to the 20th July	 1961	 for passing the remaining portion of the final order in case the respondent failed to obtain from the higher Court ' the necessary order of transfer. This order was challenged by the respondent by moving the Calcutta High Court in its criminal revisional jurisdiction. The High Court took the view that section 540 applied to cases tried under section 207A and it directed the Magistrate to consider afresh whether he should summon and examine the defence witnesses mentioned by the respondent in his application of the 6th July	 '61 under the provisions of the said section. Incidentally	 the High Court also observed that the accused persons had not been examined under s.362 and so	 it thought that an opportunity should be given to them to explain the circumstances appearing against them by asking them questions under section 342	 This observation was made even though the High Court did not think it necessary to decide the general question whether in a commitment enquiry	 examination of the accused under s.342 is compulsory or not. In the result	 the order passed by the '.Magistrate on the 7th July	 1961	 was set aside and the matter was sent back to his Court for disposal in accordance with law. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave and on its behalf (1) A. 1. R. 5 Mr. Prem has contended that the High Court was in ' error in holding that section 540 of the Code applied to proceedings under section 207A. In the alternative	 he has argued that the Magistrate had himself considered the question as to whether the witnesses should be examined in the light of his powers under section 540 and so	 even if his first point failed	 he was entitled to contend that the High Court was not justified in sending the case back to the Magistrate. There is no point	 he argues	 in asking the Magistrate to consider the question once again. There is no doubt that the new provisions under s.207A have been introduced for the purpose of expediting the commitment proceedings so as to shorten the duration of criminal cases which are exclusively triable by the Court of Session or High Court. Section 206	 inter alia	 confers powers on the Magistrates specified in the section to commit any person for trial to the Court of Session or High Court for any offence triable by such Court. Under s.207	 it is provided that in regard to a case which is triable exclusively by a Court of Session or High Court	 or which	 in the opinion of the Magistrate	 ought to be tried by such Court	 the Magistrate shall : (a) in any proceeding instituted on a Police report follow the procedure specified in s.207A; and (b) in any other proceeding	 follow the procedure specified in the other provisions of this Chapter. Thus	 section 207A is applicable to proceedings in respect of offences which are exclusively triable by the Court of Session or High Court	 or which	 in the opinion of the Magistrate	 ought to be tried by such Court. This section consists of 16 subsections which	 in a sense	 constitute a self contained Code which has to be followed in dealing with cases under the said section. Sub section (2) authorises the Magistrate to issue a process to compel the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing. Under sub section (3)	 the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that 6 the documents referred to in section 173 have been furnished to the accused and if they are not so furnished	 he has to cause the same to be so furnished. Sub section (4) then deals with the stage where the Magistrate proceeds to take evidence of such persons	 if any	 as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged	 and it adds that if the Magistrate is of opinion that it is necessary in the interests of justice to take the evidence of any one or more of the other witnesses for the prosecution	 he may take such evidence also. By sub section (5)	 the accused is given liberty to cross examine the witnesses examined under sub section (4). Sub section (6) then lays down that if evidence is recorded under sub section (4) and the Magistrate has considered all the documents referred to in s.173 and has	 if necessary	 examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and given the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard	 he shall	 if he is of opinion that such evidence and documents disclose no grounds for committing the accused person for trial	 record his reasons and discharge him	 unless he thinks that such person should be tried before himself or some other Magistrate	 in which case he shall proceed accordingly. Sub section (7) deals with a case where on considering the evidence and the documents produced and after giving opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to be heard	 the Magistrate is of opinion that the accused should be committed for trial	 "he shall frame a charge under his hand	 declaring with what offence the accused is charged". Sub section (8) then lays down that as soon as the charge has been framed	 it shall be read and explained to the accused and a copy thereof given to him free of cost. Under sub section (9)	 the accused shall be required at once to give in	 orally or in writing	 a list of the persons	 if any	 whom he wishes to be summoned to give evidence on 7 his trial. There is	 a proviso to this sub section which entitles the Magistrate in his discretion to allow such list to be given later	 but we are not concerned with that proviso in the present appeal. The rest of the clauses are not relevant for our purpose. It will thus be seen that before the Magistrate decides either to discharge the accused person	 or to direct that he should he tried by himself or by any other Magistrate	 or to commit him to the Court of Session or High Court	 he has to consider the evidence recorded before him under sub section (4) and the documents referred to in section 173. It is open to him to examine the accused person also if he thinks it necessary to do so for the purpose of enabling him to explain circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. He has	 of course	 to hear the prosecution and the accused person before making the order. The scheme of section 207A thus does not appear to provide for a defence witness to be examined before an order is passed either under sub section (6) or sub section(7)	 and that may be because it was thought by the Legislature that in dealing with criminal cases instituted on a police report	 it may ordinarily not be necessary to prolong the enquiry by allowing the accused person to lead evidence in defence and so	 no provision in that behalf has been made. Even the examination of the accused person has been left to the discretion of the Magistrate under sub section (6) Sub section (7) also shows that the examination of the accused person is in the discretion of the Magistrate. As we have already seen	 it is after the charge is framed and read and explained to the accused person under sections (8) that the stage is reached for him to give in a list of person		 whom he wants to examine under ss.(9). This position shows a striking contrast to the relevant provisions of section 208. Section 208 deals with cases where proceedings are instituted otherwise than on a police report	 and it provides that when the accused 8 person is brought before . the Magistrate	 he shall proceed to hear the complainant	 if any	 and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused	 or as may be called for by the Magistrate. Section 208 (3) provides	 inter alia	 that if the accused applies to the Magistrate to issue process to compel the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing the Magistrate shall issue such	 process unless	 for reasons to be recorded	 he deems it unnecessary to do so. In other words	 in regard to the proceedings tried under section 208	 an accused person is entitled to lead evidence in defence and the 'Magistrate is bound to allow such evidence to be led	 except	 of course	 where he comes to the conclusion that such evidence need not be led in which case he has to record his reasons for. coming to that conclusion. When we consider the relevant provisions of section 207A and contrast them with the corresponding provisions of section 208	 it becomes clear that an accused person has no right to lead evidence in defence in proceedings governed by section 207A	 whereas he has a right to call for such evidence in proceedings governed by section 208. This position	 however	 does not affect the question as to whether section 540 applies even to the proceedings governed by section 207A. Section 540 gives power to the Court to summon material witness or examine a per son in attendance	 though not summoned as a witness	 or recall and re examine any person already examined	 and the section specifically provides that 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. It would be noticed that this section confers on criminal courts very wide powers. It is no doubt for the court to consider whether its power under this section should be exercised or not. But if it is satisfied that the evidence of any person not examined or further evidence of any person already examined is essential to 9 the just decision of the case	 it is its duty to take such evidence. The exercise of the power conferred by section 540 is conditioned by the requirement that such exercise would be essential to the just decision of the case. That being so	 it is difficult to appreciate the argument that the scheme of section 207A excludes the application of section 540 to the proceedings governed by the former section. It is true that s.207A does not give an accused person a right to lead evidence in defence	 and so	 he would not be entitled to make an application in that behalf; but that is very different from saying that in proceedings under section 207A the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to examine a witness by exercising his powers under section 540. The denial to the accused person of the right to lead evidence in defence has no material bearing on the question as to whether the Magistrate can exercise his powers under section 540. We do not think that the scheme of the special provisions contained in section 207A legitimately leads to the inference that the applicability of section 540 is thereby excluded. Sometimes	 if a statute contains a special or particular provision dealing with a special or particular case or topic and also includes a general provision dealing with the said special or particular topic or case as well as others	 the particular or the special provision excludes the application of the general provision in respect of the topic or case covered by the former. That	 however	 is not the position in the present case	 because section 207A suggests	 by necessary implication	 for the. exclusion of the accused person 's right to lead evidence	 whereas section 540 does not refer to the right of the accused person or the prosecution to lead any evidence	 but deals with the court 's power to examine witnesses as court witnesses in the interest of justice. Section 540 in terms applies at any stage of any enquiry	 trial or other proceeding under this Code. This section is wide enough to include a proceeding under section 207A and so	 it would be unreasonable to contend that the scheme of s.207A makes section 540 inapplicable to the proceedings 10 governed by section 207A. The power of the court under section 540 can be exercised as much in regard to cases governed by section 207A as in regard to other proceedings governed by the other relevant provisions of the Code. Therefore	 we are satisfied that Mr. Prem is not justified in arguing that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to examine witnesses as court witnesses even if he had held that the examination of such witnesses would be essential to the just decision of the case. The alternative argument urged by Mr. Prem still remains to be considered. The High Court seems to have thought that in rejecting the application of the respondent for examining defence witnesses	 the Magistrate took the view that he had no power to do so in the present proceedings because his jurisdiction was circumscribed by the provisions of section 207 A. That appears to be the sole basis of the decision of the High Court in reversing the order of the Magistrate and sending the proceedings back to his court. In our opinion	 the High Court was in error in assuming that the Magistrate had not considered the question on the basis of the applicability of section 540. In fact	 as we have already pointed out	 when the Magistrate 's attention was drawn to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arunachalam Swami(1) he observed that the case was distin guishable on facts; he did not say that the case was irrelevant because s.540 was inapplicable to the proceedings before him. If he had taken the view that s.540 did not apply at all	 the Magistrate would obviously have said that the Bombay decision had no relevance. The reason given by the Magistrate that the case was distinguishable on facts postulates that s.540 was applicable	 but in his opinion	 the particular decision was of no assistance to the respon dent	 having regard to the difference of facts between the case before the Magistrate and the Bombay case. Therefore	 the order passed by the Magistrate cannot be successfully challenged on the ground that the (1) A. I. R. 11 Magistrate did not consider the question under section 540 of the Code. It appears from the order passed by the learned Magistrate that he took the view that having regard to the voluminous evidence adduced by the prosecution	 there was no substance in the allegation of the respondent that the evidence of the witnesses whom he proposed to examine was material or would be decisive. He has observed that the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution was voluminous and it clearly showed a prima facie case against both the accused persons. In that connection	 he has also commented on the conduct of the respondent. The photostat copies of the disputed cheques had been given to both the accused persons nearly nine months before the 6th July	 1961. Arguments in respect of these documents were urged before the Magistrate nearly two months before the said date. At no stage was it ever suggested to the Magistrate that the respondent wanted to lead evidence to show that the writings on the cheques were not in his handwriting and that the said fact	 if proved would materially affect the prosecution case. The conclusion of the Magistrate was that the application made by the respondent was vexatious and so	 was intended merely to delay the proceedings in his court. In view of the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application of the respondent	 it is very difficult to sustain the view taken by the High Court that the Magistrate was inclined to hold that s.540 did not apply to the proceedings in the present case. The High Court has also referred to the fact that the accused persons have not been examined under s.342 of the Code	 and it has apparently asked the Magistrate to examine the accused persons under that section	 without considering the question as to whether it was necessary that the Magistrate should 12 examine them at this stage. We have already referred to the relevant provisions of s.207 A (6). Sub section (6) provides that the Magistrate can examine the accused if he thinks it necessary to do SO. Besides	 even according to the judgment of the High Court	 the failure to examine the accused persons under s.342 did not amount to a material irregularity and could not by itself	 therefore	 justify the reversal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The result is	 the appeal is allowed	 the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that passed by the learned Magistrate on the 7th July	 1961	 is restored. It is to be regretted that the proceedings taken by the respondent in the High Court and those taken by the appellant after the decision of the High Court have added to the length of the life of this criminal case; and so	 it is desirable that the Magistrate should proceed to pronounce his final orders as expeditiously as possible and the case should thereafter be tried by the Court of Session without unnecessary delay. Appeal allowed.

Although an accused person is not entitled to lead evidence in his defence in a proceeding under section 207A of the Code of criminal Procedure	 that does not affect the wide powers a Criminal Court has under section 540 of the Code to summon and examine persons as court witnesses where it considers such examination essential for a just decision of the case. Section 540 of the Code is wide enough to include a proceeding under section 207A of the Code and its operation is not excluded by the scheme of section 207A of the Code. Arunachalam Swami vs State	 of Bombay	 A.I.R. 1956 Bom. 695 referred to. Sub section (6) of section 207A of	 the Code does not make it incumbent on the Magistrate to examine an accused person unless he thinks it necessary to do so. Consequently	 in the present case	 where the Magistrate in a proceeding under section 207A of the Code rejected the applica tion of the accused persons for examination of witnesses in defence not because he had no power under section 540 of the Code to do so but on the ground that the application was vexatious and was intended to delay the proceeding and the High Court in revision on an erroneous view of the Magistrate 's order set it aside and directed examination of the accused person under s.342 of the Code. Held	 that the order of the High Court must be set aside.