The court's discretion under Section 311, CrPC to recall witnesses should be exercised only in the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and with caution and circumspection.

1. Thispetition under Section 482, CrPC is directed against the orders dated 21-3-1997 3-4-1997 and 5-4-1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge disposed of the three applications moved by the petitioner under Section 311, CrPC

2. At the very outset, we may observe that normally, the petitioner was required to file three separate petitions against each of the above orders. The petitioner was, therefore, not justified in filing this petition against three orders passed on different dates by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge as aforesaid. However, since this matter pertains to a murder reference pending before this Hon’ble Court, we deem it proper to dispose it of on merits.

3. The brief facts leading to this petition are that while dealing with murder reference No. 1 of 1996 as also Criminal Appeals Nos. 407 and 418 of 1996 filed by the accused appellants against the Judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in sessions case No. 15 of 1996, this Court vide its order dated 7-8-1996 observed that there are certain points on which enquiry was required. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court. In pursuance of the above direction of this Court, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge exhibited material articles as also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and recalled PW-1 Heeralal and PW-22 Karansingh and discharged them after cross-examination.

4. On 3-3-1997 the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application that since he was engaged recently, he would be requiring some time to study the matter. He therefore, prayed for 25 days time. On 6-3-1997, the learned counsel for the petitioner further moved an application for recalling all the witnesses mentioned in the application viz., PW-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 25. By the last application dated 11-3-1997, the petitioner prayed for recalling the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that a few important questions are to be asked to each of the prosecution witnesses in the interest of justice. It was further submitted that PW-1 Heeralal could not be administered oath. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the above applications on the ground that two prosecution witnesses viz., PW-1 Heeralal and PW-22 Karansingh were recalled and re-examined and re-cross examined. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge further held that before Shri R.K. Gehlot started representing the petitioner Shri P. R. Choudhary, a Senior Criminal Lawyer, was representing the accused petitioner. The learned trial Court perused the statements of the above witnesses and came to the conclusion that in view of the directions of this Court, the accused-petitioner has been provided opportunity to cross-examine the above two witnesses and on the ground of change of Advocate, the witnesses cannot be re-examined, re-cross-examined or recalled. He further opined that it would be futile to examine the defence witnesses because nothing new has come on the record. The witnesses sought to be examined by the accused had no connection with the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory of the exhibition of the materials.

5. We have heard Mr. R. K. Gehlot, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. V.R. Mehta, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he started representing the accused from 3-3-1997 and prior to that date, the accused expressed his desire to the Court that he had engaged another Advocate and despite that, the Amicus Curaie was allowed to cross-examine the above two witnesses who were recalled by the learned trial Court in pursuance of the directions of this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that after a thorough study of the case he was of definite opinion that in the interest of the justice, it would be necessary to put certain