JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The complainant in the Court below has filed this revision against an order dated 8.9.1971 passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrak, rejecting the complainant?s prayer to recall p.w. 5 in order that two of the registered sale deeds which were filed in the Court on 16.1.1971 and were on record could be proved by him and exhibited in this case. 2. On behalf of the complainant a petition was filed in the Court below on 7-9-1971 to the effect that the said two sale deeds executed by the accused in favour of p.w. 5 were essentially required to be proved in this case in view of the plea taken by the accused in his Section 342 statement and the argument advanced on his behalf that the accused had not executed such documents in favour of p.w. 5. It is averred therein that p.w. 5 produced those two registered sale deeds on 16.1.1971 and the complainant was under the impression that those documents had been exhibited in the case, but, as found later, due to ill luck those documents had not actually been marked as exhibits in the case; and that for the ends of justice it was necessary that those two documents should be proved in the case, and so p.w. 5 should be recalled so that he could be examined for the purpose of proving the aforesaid two documents. 3. This petition, no doubt, was filed rather at a very late stage, as by taken the arguments in the case had already been heard and the judgment was to be delivered on 13-9-1971., When the counsel for both the parties argued the case in the Court below, submissions were made with reference to the aforesaid two sale deeds. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that it is apparently from the aforesaid petition that only at the stage of argument it could be known that the aforesaid two documents filed on 16.1.1971 had not been marked as exhibits in this case. Accordingly, very soon thereafter the prayer to recall p.w. 5 was made for the purpose stated above. 4. The Petitioner?s case is that the accused opposite party sold a piece of land to the complaint on receipt of Re. Accordingly, very soon thereafter the prayer to recall p.w. 5 was made for the purpose stated above. 4. The Petitioner?s case is that the accused opposite party sold a piece of land to the complaint on receipt of Re. 1300/- on 28.11.1967 by a registered sale deed, representing at that time that the said land belonged to him (the accused). Later, the complainant learnt that the accused had sold that very land to p.w. 5 by two registered sale deeds in the years 1955 and 1957. The two sale deeds, which are on record and filed on 16.1.1971, are of the years 1955 and 1957. Those two sale deeds belonging to p.w. 5 were allegedly produced by him in the Court below on the date when he alone was examined. P.w. 5 has deposed that in 1955 and 1957 the accused sold some lands to him by executing sale deeds. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that Fakir Charan Rout, a deed writer very well known to him, had scribed his sale deeds. These two sale deeds appear to have been scribed by one Fakir Charan Rout. Thus it appears that though the aforesaid two documents were filed in this case on 16-1-1971 and p.w. 5 was examined on that date, those documents were not proved and exhibited on that date, probably due to negligence or inadvertence of the complainants lawyer. 5. In the decision reported in Kesav Pillai and Anr. v. Emperor AIR 1929 Mad. 897 it has been held: Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure, gives a Judge the fullest discretion to recall a witness at any stage of a trial and makes it imperative for him to do so, if he considers further evidence essential to the just decision of the case. Here an essential document bad been overlooked by the prosecution and it was the Judge?s duty to have it admitted in evidence. To argue that be should not have carried out that duty, as the result was fatal to the accused, is to suggest that the words ?just decision? mean a decision in favour of the defence. Here an essential document bad been overlooked by the prosecution and it was the Judge?s duty to have it admitted in evidence. To argue that be should not have carried out that duty, as the result was fatal to the accused, is to suggest that the words ?just decision? mean a decision in favour of the defence. On the allegations put forward by the complainant and the plea so far taken by the accused, I feel that it is essentially necessary for the Court below to consider these two documents, if proved, for a just and proper decision of this case in this view of the matter and on the facts and circumstances of this case the delay in filing the above petition should not stand on the way to get the above essential evidence on record. P.w. 5, therefore, should be recalled and examined for the above purpose. It is for the Court below to examine and scan his evidence and the evidentiary value of the above two documents, if proved, in the proper perspective, without, any way being influenced by any prima facie view expressed above. 6. As the petition to recall the witness was filed at a very late stage, the complainant has to compensate the accused by passing costs, as the trial of the case has to proceed again from the stage of the examination of p.w. 5 for the purpose aforesaid. Accordingly, the complainant is hereby directed to pay Rs. 100/. (Rupees one hundred) only as costs to the accused or to his lawyer before steps for recalling p.w. 5 are taken in the Court below. 7. In the result, therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The Court below shall recall p.w. 5 for the aforesaid purpose, if the cost, ordered above, is paid by the complainant after examining p.w. 5 for the purpose aforesaid the Court below shall examine the accused and give him an opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence, if so required. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with the above order for payment of cost, this order shall have no effect. The Court below should proceed to dispose of the case as early as possible in accordance with law and the above direction. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the Court below on the 24th of April, 1972 to take further orders and directions from that Court. The Court below should proceed to dispose of the case as early as possible in accordance with law and the above direction. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the Court below on the 24th of April, 1972 to take further orders and directions from that Court. 8. The revision accordingly is allowed and disposed of in accordance with the above directions. The lower Court records be sent back immediately.