Ranjana Pandya, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

2. This revision has been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.07.2016, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge / FTC, Lakhimpur Kheri, rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1 Kalpana and PW-2 Ramesh Chandra and during the pendency of the instant revision the further proceeding of S.T. No. 40 of 2014 may be stayed.

3. Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon 2007 Cri.L.J. 1626, M/s Sree Venkatadeswara Enterprises vs. G Rajasekharan Nair, in which it has been laid down that provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked before pronouncement of the judgment.

4. The provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be taken any time before the pronouncement of the judgment, hence in this way, Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not restrict the powers of the Court.

5. Counsel for the revisionist has again placed reliance upon (2013) 5 SCC 741, Natasha Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (State), in which it has been laid down as under: -

"The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to rend