JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has come to this court challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, dated 12th March, 1987 by which he allowed the application of Public Prosecutor moved under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure 2. The record shows that trial of this case is proceeding leisurely and learned Public Prosecutor is also partly responsible for this. The decision of the case has thrice been deferred, may be for any reason whatsoever. It is true that legislation has given powers to a court to call witnesses under Section 311 Cr. P.C. But it must bring out a strong case for the same It should not be merely for filling up the lacunas or to meet such situation of which defence can take use. In this case charge was amende I on '-10-86 when the case was listed for final hearing. Arguments for the final disposal were heard on 27-10-86 and case was posted on (-11-96, on which day judgment was to be pronounced. An appellation was moved for recalling Tekchand as some receipts remained to be exhibited But for the reason that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not dictate or deliver the judgment in the early hours, an opportunity was availed of by the Public Prosecutor. The fact about the documents not being exhibited must have come or at least should have come to knowledge of learned PP long back, if not he should have been vigilant at the time of final arguments and raised the point during course of arguments. It is very unfortunate that when the case is completely argued and the matter is posted for judgment on application like the one is entertained. It is another thing that court suo moto could enter- tain. if the court find it essential in the interest of justice. But such circumstance on is not keeping with in spirit of S. 31 1 Cr P.C. Besides this, the application is absolutely vague. Only 5 receipts had been submitted alongwith the charge sheet and the receipts Nos. to which Tekchand has made a reference in his statement some of them do not find place among these five receipts. But such circumstance on is not keeping with in spirit of S. 31 1 Cr P.C. Besides this, the application is absolutely vague. Only 5 receipts had been submitted alongwith the charge sheet and the receipts Nos. to which Tekchand has made a reference in his statement some of them do not find place among these five receipts. What could not be done directly or produced with the charge-sheet cannot be permitted to be filed at 'he fag end of the trial when the case was posted for judgment. In this view of the matter, I am not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The application is allowed, the order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to hear the arguments afresh and decide the case at an early date. Record of the case may be sent forthwith.Application allowed. *******