The Court has the discretion to summon witnesses or examine persons present in Court or recall witnesses already examined at any stage of the trial, provided it is necessary for the just decision of the case.

KULWANT SINGH TIWANA, J.

1. The facts leading to this revision are that Sukhdev Singh petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The prosecution closed its evidence against the petitioner on 22nd of April, 1981. He was examined under Section 313 of Criminal P.C., 1973 on 29th of April, 1981. The defence was closed by him on 20th of July, 1981. On 23rd of July, 1981, the prosecution filed an application in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, in the light of the judgement of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 1979 decided on 24th of February, 1981, reported as Atma Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1981 Chand Cri C 181 (Punj and Har), for examining the Clerk of the office of the Chemical Examiner to prove that the sample had reached in that office with seals intact and that the sample was handed over to the Chemical Examiner in that very condition. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur noticed Santokh Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 119, in which it was laid down that the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna, but he, however, allowed the prosecution to examine the Clerk of the office of the Chemical Examiner or the production of his affidavit to complete the link in the evidence in view of the judgement in Atma Singhs case (supra).

2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and has filed this revision, which, straightway at the motion hearing, was admitted to a Division Bench.

3. Shri Bachittar Singh Giani, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill in a lacuna in its evidence at a late stage of the case when it is fixed only for arguments. He has sought help from The King V/s. Dore Harris, (1927) 2 KB 587, State of Rajasthan V/s. Daulat Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1314 : (1980 Cri LJ 929) and Santokh Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 119, to urge that once in a case the prosecution evidence is closed and the case reaches the final stage, the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps in its case by allowing the examination of evidence, which it could tender at the trial before closing its case.

4. If the prosecutor after the closure of his evidence finds that for one reason or the other, which of course is required to be persuasive, some witnesses, who were necessary for his case, could not be cited, or if cited could not be examined or some documents could not be tendered or exhibited in evidence, he has two options open before him. One is to ask the Court for permission to lead additional evidence or request it to exercise its right under Section 311 of Criminal P.C., 1973, for brevity referred as the Code. His choice on the first option is very limited and, except in exceptional cases, may not meet the approval of the Court. He can always crave to convince the Court for proceeding under Section 311 of the Code. Section 311 which is in two parts, is as under :-

"S.311 : Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the-just decision of the case."

In this case we are not concerned with the second part as the Magistrate had not formed a conclusion that the evidence permitted to be summoned was essential to the just decision of the case. The Magistrate had exercised his discretion in the first part of this Section. It is expressed in the widest possible terms and the intention is not to limit the discretion of the trial Court in any way either to the stage at which the powers of th