N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, allowing the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C permitting the respondent to further cross examine P.W.4 and re- examine P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.5 to 16.

2. From the records, it is found that the prosecution had already examined sixteen witnesses and they were also cross examined by the accused persons. Thereafter, the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also completed and the case reached the stage of final arguments. At that point of time, the respondent had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

3. A reading of the petition filed by the respondent does not contain any reason as to why the prosecution has decided to wholesale recall almost all the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.5 to 16 in order to re-examine them. Similarly, the petition does not pointed out the reason as to why a further cross examination of P.W.4 has to be conducted.

4. The Court below has allowed the application primarily on the ground of interest of justice and in order to allow the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and for that purpose an opportunity must be given to the prosecution to recall the witnesses. Apart from this no other reason has been given by the court below to permit the prosecution to virtually reopen and examine almost all the witnesses.

5. The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner would submit that insofar as P.W.4 is concerned, the said witness had turned hostile. Therefore, at the best, the prosecution can only treat him as hostile witness and cross examine him by virtue of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act by showing the 161 statement recorded from the said witness and put questions to contradict his version. According to the learned Senior counsel this exercise has already been done by the prosecution when P.W.4 was treated as a hostile witness and cross examined by the prosecution.

6. The learned Senior counsel further submits that insofar as the other witnesses are concerned, they have been examined in chief and they have also been cross examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, the prosecution cannot be allowed to reopen and call upon the witnesses all over again in the name of re-examination. The learned Senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted that insofar as re-examination is concerned, the same shall be done only to explain matters referred to in the cross examination or if any new matter has come to the knowledge of the party, then with the permission of the Court, the witness can be re-examined and in which case, the adverse party can further cross examine the witness. According to the learned Senior counsel, the petition filed by the prosecution does not reveal any new fact that has come to the knowledge of the prosecution.

7. The learned Senior counsel referred to the following Judgments.

1. Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2013) 14 SCC 461.

2. Martin Manrique Mansour Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai, (2016) 1 LW(Cri) 637.

8. Per contra the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that Section 311 Cr.P.C petition can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. The learned counsel would further submit that the Court below has a wide discretionary power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and the same can be used to ensure interest of justice. According to the learned counsel, the Court below has exercised this discretion and has thought it fit to allow the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and therefore this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C should not interfere with the same.

9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and has also taken into consideration the mate