( 1 ) SINCE the question involved in these cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) PETITIONER and the respondents in both the Criminal Revision Petitions are same. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1135 of 1997 is filed against the order dated 24-11-1997 in Crl. MP No. 5596 of 1997 in CC No. 367 of 1997 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and Criminal Revision Petition No. 1136 of 1997 is filed against the order dated 24-11-1997 in Crl. MP No. 5597 of 1997 in CC No. 368 of 1996 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. These petitions were filed under Section 311 Cr. PC to recall PW3 to mark the certificate issued by the officer in Indian Bank, Begumpet Branch Hyderabad, in both the above cases, to establish certain facts in the cases.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience the facts in Criminal Revision Case No. l 135 of 1997 are taken for the disposal of both the Revision Cases.

( 4 ) IN the main case the prosecution s evidence was already closed, and the case was posted for 313 Cr. PC examination. At that stage this application is filed. It is pertinent to note that similar application was filed in Crl. MP No. 2452 of 1997 to recall PW1 for making the said document. The learned Magistrate had dismissed the same holding that it amounts to filling the lacuna in the complainant s case. Against the said order the petitioner herein had preferred Criminal Revision Caseno. 172 of 1997 and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision upholding the order of the trial Court. The Court below had categorically held that the petitioner by marking the document through PW1 is attempting to fill up the lacuna in the case. No further steps were taken against that order.

( 5 ) THE present application is filed to recall PW3, a Bank officer instead of PW1 as in the previous Crl. MP 2452 of 1997 to mark the self same document. When the said applications are dismissed the revisions are filed.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Narasimha Reddy submitted that the Court has wide power under Section 311 Cr. PC to recall any witnesses and reexamine at any stage of the trial in the interests of the justice. In support of his contention he relied on a judgment in Jamatraj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178. The Apex Court considering the scope of Section 540 of Criminal Procedure Cod, 1898, which is equivalent to Section 311 Cr. PC of the present Code, has held that Chapter 21 of Cr. PC (1898) does not restrict the powers of criminal Court under Section 540 Cr. PC and that Section 540 Cr. PC and Section 165 Evidence Act, between them, confer a wide discretion on the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require. It is also held that Section 540 is intended to be wide as the repeated use of the word any throughout its length clearly indicates and that the section is in two parts. The first part gives a discretionary power but the latter part is mandatory.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision in Kotua Marhmdeyulu v. Republic of India, 1989 Crl. LJ 238, In that case the prosecution s evidence was closed and it was posted for arguments. At that stage it was discovered that sanction to prosecution was not marked. An application was filed under Section 311 Cr. PC to summon the sanctioning authority to mark the sanction. The sanction order was already on the file of the Court. Under those circumstances, the trial Court Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence of sanctioning authority to mark the sanction order was essential and summoned the sanctioning authority to mark the document. This action was upheld by the Court. The Supreme Court in Hussain Umar v. Dalipsmsfgi, AIR 1970 SC 45, has held,"as to the last question, we find that examination-in-chief of FW50 AH commenced on 7/10/1960 and was concluded on 10/10/1990. His cross-examination commenced on 21/08/1961 and was concluded on 4/09/1961. On 6/03/1962 a