1. The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 30 of 2016 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha. The offences alleged are offences under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A r/w Section 120B IPC.

2. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused was called upon to enter on defence. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. During the course of final argument, the prosecution filed C.M.P. No. 159 of 2018, praying for recalling PW-6 stating that there was no identification of the accused by the witness. The court below as per Annexure D order, allowed the said petition, against which this Crl.M.C. has been filed.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Vijayadas K.V. vs. State of Kerala, 2017 (4) KHC 91 and argued that the recalling and the re-examination of a witness cannot be done to fill up the lacuna or to cover up the defect or to rectify the mistake crept in the evidence and in the