N ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in CrlMP No.3248 of 2015, allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of CrPC to recall certain witnesses and to mark certain documents.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as A-4 in CC No.187 of 2013. There are totally five accused persons, who are facing trial for the offence under Sections 120(b), 294(b), 467, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC. In this case, the prosecution has completed examination of the witnesses and 313 questioning was also completed. At this stage, a petition was filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of CrPC.

3. In the petition filed before the Court below, the prosecution has submitted that the case involves proving of the charge of forgery and therefore, the Sub Registrar of Vallam, who was examined as PW.6 must be recalled and examined and apart from that the Treasury Officer of Sub Treasury, Thanjavur, which had issued stamp papers also to be examined. That apart, the prosecution wanted to mark two records showing the sale of stamp papers and also delivery of the stamp papers to the same vendor from the Treasury Office. The prosecution also wanted to compare the signature of PW.2 and Ex P.7 through an expert and therefore, wanted to send the documents for expert's opinion and to examine the Expert after the report is received.

4. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the recall petition has been filed by the prosecution only to fill up the lacuna and the witnesses as well as documents have no relevance to the case.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the entire facts, thought it fit to allow the application on the ground that the prosecution must be given a fair opportunity to prove the case, more particularly since the case involves forgery. Therefore, the Court in exercise of its wide discretion under Section 311 of CrPC allowed the petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below had not taken note of the fact that the prosecution has come up with the application only to cover up the lacuna. The learned Counsel would further submit that the witness who was not examined by the Investigating Officer, cannot be examined as a witness before the trial Court. The learned Counsel also submitted that prosecution is trying to introduce a new case after the completion of trial. The learned Counsel would rely upon a judgment of this Court in the State Vs Tmt. Indirakumari and Others, (2003) 3 CTC 291, in order to support his contention that the witness, who has not been examined by the Investigating Officer, cannot be examined as a witness in the Court.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) would submit that Section 311 of CrPC gives a very wide discretion to the Court to allow a petition to recall and re-examine any person, if his evidence appears to be essential in order to come to a just decision in the case. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and also to question the witnesses with regard to the documents sought to be filed by recalling the witnesses. The learned Government Advocate relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court;-

i. Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India and another, (1991) SCC(Criminal) 595

ii. U. T. of Dadar and Nagar Haveli and another Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529 and

iii. Rajarjm Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2013) AIR SC 3081.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record. It is seen that the charge against the accused persons in this case is that they have fabricated a bogus sale deed by impersonation and also by committing forgery. Therefore in order to substantiate this charge, the prosecution has to necessarily prove the case beyond reasonable doubts agai