Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revisional Court'), whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.4.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner is facing proceedings under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, initiated at the instance of the sole respondent, in those proceedings the Trial Court vide order dated 5.4.2013, while exercising the powers under Sec. 311 CPC, has summoned the complainant PW-1 Kishan Lal for the purpose of giving further evidence.

3. The Trial Court on 3.4.2013, after recording the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, has finally heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and fixed the matter for pronouncement of judgment on 5.4.2013. However, on 5.4.2013, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order, wherein it is observed that while perusing the record of the case, it is noticed that the documents which were relied upon by the complainant in his evidence have not been exhibited due to an error on the part of the Court. After observing this, the Trial Court has held that the error committed is of technical nature and for such error, any of the party could not be deprived of justice and the Court, while exercising the powers under Sec. 311 CrPC can recall a witness for reaching just decision of the case.

4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 5.4.2013 passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the revision petition before the Revisional Court, however, the Revisional Court has dismissed the said revision petition while observing that the parties are not made to suffer for the error committed by the Court or by the advocate and the Trial Court after noticing the error of technical nature, has rightly exercised the powers under Sec. 311 CrPC for giving just decision in the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Trial Court on 5.4.2013 is illegal because the Magistrate has no power to review its own order. It is contended that once the Court has finally heard the arguments of the respective counsels of the parties and fixed the matter for pronouncement of judgment, then it has no power to review its own order and to order for- recalling of prosecution witness.

6. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in M/s. IRIS Computers Ltd. v. M/s. Askari Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2014 (1) NIJ 366 (SC) : 2014 (1) CCC 862 (SC).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that by passing of the order dated 5.4.2013, the Trial Court has attempted to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution and the same may cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the order of the Trial Court gave an unfair advantage to the opposite party and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Natasha Singh v. CBI (State), reported in 2013 CrLR (SC) 582.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Revisional Court has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases and passed the impugned order dated 19.9.2013 in mechanical manner.

9. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the orders passed by the Courts below may kindly be set aside.

10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

11. Sec. 311 CrPC reads as under : -

"Any C