The discretion under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised judiciously and with caution, ensuring that it is not used to fill gaps in the case or to harass witnesses.

1. - In this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner challenges the order dated, April 7,1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer (Kekri) in Sessions Case No. 5/93, whereby he allowed the application of the accused-non petitioner under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code for recalling /summoning the prosecution witnesses, P.W. Ito P.W.4 for further reexamination.

2. In brief, the petitioner's daughters Anita was assaulted with a knife by the accused and a report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Kekri. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and thereafter, the case was committed, which is now pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 2, Ajmer, Camp Kekri. After framing charges the statements of P.W. 1, Anita Soni, P.W. 2 Babita, P.W. 3 Shanti Devi and P.W. 4 Chiranji Lal were recorded. A bare perusal of their cross-examination show that the witnesses have been cross examined at length. P.W.1, Kumari Anita has been cross-examined at length in relation to her relations with the accused and she has been further cross-examined about the letters. The statement of Anita was recorded by the learned trial Judge on13.8.93.

3. The accused had approached this Court for bail, which was dismissed by this Court and the Trial Court was directed to complete trial within three months. The accused moved an application before the Trial Court under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code for recalling P.W.1 to 4 for further cross-examination and the learned trial Judge vide impugned order allowed the said application.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the accused was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and they have been cross-examined at length, but still the trial Judge allowed the application to re-summon the witnesses for further cross-examination without assigning any reason. It was contended by the learned Counsel that the accused had cross-examined P.W. 1 at length about the alleged relations and the letters and, if he wanted to produce any letter he could have done so at that stage. It was also contended that the accused is facing trail under Section 307 I.P.C. and, if any letter has been written by Kumari Anita, it has no relevance specially when she has been a I ready cross examined on this point. According to the learned Counsel, the whole object of the accused is to delay the trial and harass and humiliate the witnesses by recalling them. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is discretionary and no interference is called for. It was also submitted by him that the letters are relevant and the Trial Court has jurisdiction to pass appropriate order under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code

5. 1 have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. Section-311 Criminal Procedure Code is in two parts. The first part enables the Court to summon any-one as a witness. or to examine any person present in the Court or to recall or reexamine any witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is no doubt true that first part of Section , which applied in the present case is discretionary and the object of the Section is to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to prod use evidence which is necessary for the just decision of a case. However, the discretion has to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner with great caution. While exercising such powers, the Court should be vigilant that the purpose of this section is not to enable one party or the other to fill up gaps in the case or to harass the witnesses. The learned Trial Court in the impugned order has not given reasons as to why further re-examination of the witnesses was necessary to the just decision of the case. As stated earlier, all the four witnesses have been cross-examined at length and it is not a