Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This petition is directed against Order dated 21.6.2016 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in Case No. 87-2 of 2012.

2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that FIR No. 231/2011 dated 31.10.2011 under sections 448 and 342 IPC was registered. Challan was presented and the Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons. Accused were also charged. Prosecution examined the complainant alongwith other witnesses. Statement of Kutub Deen son of Kalamdeen was also recorded. Petitioner filed an application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling Kutub Deen, who was examined as PW-6, for re-examination. According to the averments made in the application, he has given the statement contradictory to the statement made by him before the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla in case titled, Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board vs. Jaspal Singh and others, wherein he was examined as PW-2. He has deposed that Mohd. Tariq and Mohd. Mossin were in possession of the property as sub-tenants under the accused, who had subletted the premises to them. However, while appearing as PW-6 in case No. 87-2/2012, he has resiled from his previous statement which was made by him on 19.11.2014. He has given false statement, intentionally and deliberately, while appearing as PW-6. Thereafter, complainant engaged another counsel of his choice to assist the learned Public Prosecutor and instructed him to file an application for reexamination of the witness to confront him with his earlier statement.

3. Application was contested by the accused. According to the averments made in the reply, applicant has no locus standi to file the application. Learned District Attorney has not authorised him to file the application. PW-6 Kutub Deen has not made any contradictory statement.

4. Kutub Deen was examined as PW-6 on 13.3.2015. He was examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He was, thereafter, cross-examined on behalf of the accused. Application has also not been signed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no ground has been made out to recall the witness. Merely, that the complainant has changed his counsel, can not be a ground to recall a witness. In the application, it is not even stated that what statement was made by him before the learned District Judge in case titled HP Wakf Board vs. Jaspal Singh and others. What has been stated is that he has intentionally and deliberately led false evidence in connivance with the accused.

5. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 have explained the nature and scope of Section 311 CrPC. Their lordships have held that the power can be exercised at any stage as per the principles laid down thereunder. The paramount consideration should be for just decision of the case. Their lordships have held as under:

“14. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. would show that widest of the powers have been invested with the Courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the expression “any” has been used as a pre-fix to “court”, “inquiry”, “trial”, “other proceeding”, “person as a witness”, “person in attendance though not summoned as a witness”, and “person already examined”. By using the said expression “any” as a pre-fix to the various expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that all that was required to be satisfied by the Court was only in relation to such evidence that appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re-examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such reexamination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and