Indu Prabha Singh, J.

1. This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). In this application a prayer has been made to recall the judgment dated 2B-2-2000 passed by me in Cr. Revision No. 684/96 by which I set aside the order dated 7-10-1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hajipur in G.R. Case No. 781/91, Tr. No. 189/96. By this order the learned Magistrate had called for Book-I from the registration office with regard to the sale-deed dated 25-6-1988 executed by Bharat Choudhary in favour of a Samiti known as Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Grih Nirman Samity Ltd., Hajipur (in short the Samily).

2. In this petition it has been contended that a number of decisions were cited before me in Cr. Revision No. 684/96 in support of the contentions of the petitioner. However, by the judgment under recall passed by me I did not take into consideration the aforesaid rulings and decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, a prayer has been made to recall the aforesaid judgment passed by me.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Opposite Party No. 1 Shashi Kant Verma the President of the Samity who was petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 684/96 had sold 4 112 Kathas of land in favour of the present petitioner, his wife and others though actually he had purchased only 2 Kathas of land of this plot by a sale-deed dated 25-6-1968 executed by Bharat Choudhary. In this case the charge-sheet was submitted by the police under various Sections Including 467, 468, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on which the cognizance was taken. In course of the trial on 4-11 -1999 the certified copy of the aforesaid sale-deed as also the photo copy of the sale-deed dated 13-12-1988 executed in favour of one Sunil Kumar were filed in the Court by the present petitioner. On 20-4-1996 the prosecution case was closed and accused persons were examined under Sec. 313 of the Code on 18-5-1996. On 10-6-1996 a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution to direct the accused persons to file the original sale-deed dated 25-6-1988 executed by Bharat Choudhary as also the sale register maintained by the Samity on whose behalf the sale-deed was executed in favour of the present petitioner. Again on 5-8-1996 a petition was filed to call for the original sale-deed dated 25-6-1988 from the registration office which informed the Court that the original sale-deed had already been taken away by the Samity. On 30-9-1996 the defence evidence was closed. However, by the order dated 7-10-1996 the learned trial Court directed the registration office at tajipur to produce the registration register maintained by it. It was against this order that Cr. Revision No. 684/96 was filed before this Court in which the order was passed on 28-2-2000 setting aside the order dated 7-10-1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur. The present application has been filed to recall this order passed by me on the ground that various decisions cited on behalf of the parties as mentioned in Paragraph No. 5 of the present petition were not considered by me in the judgment.

4. It has been contended that the judgment under recall is illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law. In the statements recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code no defence of the accused persons was disclosed. The sale-deed dated 25-6-1988 executed by Bharat Choudhary is very relevant for the just decision of the case. It has wrongly been held by this Court that under Sec. 311 of the Code a document cannot be called for. The certified copy of the sale-deed dated 25-6-1988 could not be proved and taken into evidence since Book-I with regard to it as called for from the registration office could not be produced. Under Sec. 311 of the Code and Sec. 165 of the Evidence Act a wide discretion has been conferred on the Court to act as the exgencies of justice required at any stage. If the ruling