ORDER

1. This revision under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C has been filed assailing the order dated 25.7.2022 (Annexure A/1), passed by the 4th ASJ, Satna in S.T.No.161/2016, whereby an application under section 311 filed by the prosecution has been allowed and alleged bankers cheques on which manipulation is stated to have been made are summoned along with witnesses for exhibiting the same in evidence.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the year 2016 S.T.No.161/16 (State of M.P. v. Ramgopal Gupta) for commission of offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and section 409 of IPC was transferred to the Court of 3rd ASJ by Sessions Judge, Satna for trial. Charges were framed long back in 2016. After closure of the prosecution evidence defence closed its evidence on 9.1.2020 and case was fixed for final arguments for 24.1.2020. It is submitted that in a period of more than two and a half years final arguments were not heard in the meantime. On 9.6.2022, prosecution moved an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the impugned order and prosecution was permitted to summon the original bankers cheques along with witnesses Babulal Kumre PW3 who was examined and cross-examined 5 years back on 27.9.2017 for further evidence.

3. It is also the contention of learned counsel that earlier applicant had moved an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C on 9.10.2018 for recalling of witness Babulal PW3 but same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that witness was examined long back and therefore, there is no need of his re-examination vide order dated 24.12.2018. It is urged that when application filed by accused was dismissed long back, learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the application filed by the prosecution to fill up the lacuna. Thus, he has prayed for the quashment of the impugned order dated 25.7.2022 (Annexure A/1).

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has contended that learned trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C filed by prosecution as whole prosecution case depends on the manipulated cheques which were earlier not exhibited by calling the same from the Treasury. Therefore, learned trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application. Thus, he has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Provisions of section 311 of Cr.P.C reads as under :

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. 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.”

7. The object of provisions for recalling is to reserve the power with the Court to prevent any injustice in the conduct of the trial at any stage. The power available with the Court to prevent injustice has to be exercised only if the Court, for valid reasons, feels that injustice is caused to a party. The purpose of a criminal trial is orderly society and that to find out the truth, summoning of witnesses which are material cannot be said to be unjustified as the petitioner would have complete opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

8. It is not a case of lacuna but the failure of prosecution to produce original manipulated cheques as relevant evidence during the course of trial which are already available with the case record and are kept in the treasury for its safety. Such evidence is not filling of a lacuna, but a case of oversight in the management of the prosecution which cannot stated to be irreparable lacuna.

9. In this case, the entire prosecution story hinges on the manipulation made by the