Court's power to examine a witness is broad, limited only by fair cross-examination and the accused's right to rebut prejudice.

Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers broad discretion on the criminal court to summon and examine any witness necessary to reach the truth and do justice. That power is not limited to witnesses favourable to either side, and a witness may be examined as a court witness even if the evidence may support the prosecution. The only recognised safeguards are that both sides must have an equal opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the accused must be allowed to rebut any prejudicial evidence. No further limitation can be read into the provision beyond these fairness requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal court had power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine a witness as a court witness and whether any limitation could be imposed on that power in the circumstances.

Analysis: Section 540 confers wide discretion on the court to summon and examine any witness necessary for arriving at the truth. The power is not confined to witnesses whose evidence assists either side, and it is not objectionable merely because the evidence may support the prosecution rather than the accused. The only constraints recognised are that both sides must be given an equal opportunity to cross-examine the court witness and that the accused must be permitted to rebut any evidence prejudicial to him. Subject to these requirements of fairness, no further restriction can be read into the provision.

Conclusion: The order directing examination of the witness as a court witness was valid and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed because the Magistrate acted within the permissible scope of the court's power to summon and examine a witness essential for the just decision of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has broad discretion to summon and examine a witness necessary for justice, limited only by the requirements of equal cross-examination and an opportunity to rebut prejudicial evidence.

---