JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated October 7, 1991, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta, by which the learned Magistrate recalled the witness Kalunath for further examination. He, also, ordered for the summoning of the Malkhana Register of the Police Station, Merta. 2. The petitioner was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta, for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The case of the prosecution is that on July 14, 1985, at about 3.00 p.m., the accused-petitioner was carrying 5 kilograms of opium & was apprehended near Jarura Railway Station Crossing. The prosecution produced eight witnesses in the trial Court and closed its evidence. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr. PC and the arguments on behalf of both the parties were heard. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate fixed the case for pronouncement of the judgment on August 8, 199l. The learned Magistrate did not pronounce the judgment on 8-8-1991, and adjourned the case to August 12, 1991. It was mentioned in the order-sheet that the counsel for the accused wants time to produce the authorities judgments on the point. On August 12, 1991, the case was again adjourned to August 14, 1991 On August 14, 1991, the learned Magistrate called the Malkhana Register and posted the case on September 9, 1991. On September 9, 1991, the case was a journed to September 24, 1991, and thereafter the case was adjourned to September 30, 1991, and on September 30, 1991, the case was adjourned to October 7, 1991, and on October 7, 1991, the learned Magistrate ordered to recall Foot Constable Kalunath as well as summoned the Malkhana Register. It is against this order that the present miscellaneous petition has been filed. 3. The learned Magistrate recalled the witness F C. Kalunath and summoned the Malkhana Register while exercising its powers under Section 311 Cr. PC. Section 311 Cr. PC, no doubt, gives powers to the Court at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings to recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to him to be essential to just decision of the case. PC. Section 311 Cr. PC, no doubt, gives powers to the Court at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings to recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to him to be essential to just decision of the case. The object of this Section is to enable the Court to arrive at the true conclusion irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some witness(es) which is necessary for the just and proper disposal of the case. But this discretion, vested in the trial Court, has to be exercised judiciously and with great caution and circumspection. Though wide powers have been given to the Court, but these powers are to be exercised within the limits and are not meant to be exercised used for the purpose of enabling the prosecution to fill-up the gaps left by the prosecution in its case. If the prosecution neglected to elicit essential facts to prove the charges against the accused then the powers vested under Section 311 Cr. PC cannot be invoked to rectify the latches of the prosecution and to fill-up the lacunae left by it. In the present case, the arguments were heard and the case was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment. No request was made by the prosecution to recall and reexamine the witness. It appears that while dictating the judgment, the Court might have come across the gaps left by the prosecution and in order to fill-up those gaps, the Court in the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Court under Section 311 Cr. PC, may have ordered for recalling the witness. It is not the intention of Section 311 Cr. PC to recall and re-examine the witness to fill-up the gaps and lacunae left by the prosecution. 4. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order. passed by the learned Magistrate, recalling and re-examining the witness and summoning the Malkhana Register, is not proper and deserves to be quashed. 5. In the result, I allow this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, quash the order recalling and re-examining the witness Kalu Nath, Foot Constable, and summoning the Malkhana Register. The Court may re-hear the arguments and pronounce the judgment on the materials already available on record.Petition allowed. *******