JUDGMENT 1. - The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are being prosecuted in case FIR No. 157/99 of Police Station - Navalgarh, in the court of the learned Sessions Judge - Jhunjhunu. After the statement of the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the two deceased persons, had been recorded and the Investigating Officer had been examined, an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code"), was moved on behalf of the complainant, stating that certain questions which were required to be asked from the doctor, who had examined the injuries on the person of Mst. Sundari, one of the deceased, could not be asked and also that the Investigating Officer's statement was required to be clarified inasmuch as the dates given by him were different than those mentioned in the recovery-memos and in the disclosure-statements made by the accused and further that no identification of the articles recovered had been got made from the Investigating Officer by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was prayed that the doctor and the Investigating Officer be re-summoned for asking those questions with a view to get the articles identified and to get the clarifications made. The application has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order dated 16th April, 1993, passed in Sessions Case No. 4/89. Hence, this petition under Section 482 of the Code. 2. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed his application as far as re- summoning of the doctor, Dr. Bhagwan Singh Sheknawat, PW 15 is concerned, but has confined the same to the recalling of the Investigating Officer, Shri Govind Narain, who was examined as PW 19. 3. It is not disputed that according to the recovery-memos disclosure-statements, produced on record, the dates mentioned were different than those dates, which were mentioned in the statement made by the Investigating Officer during his examination. 4. 3. It is not disputed that according to the recovery-memos disclosure-statements, produced on record, the dates mentioned were different than those dates, which were mentioned in the statement made by the Investigating Officer during his examination. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that those statements appear to have been made without referring to the documents, which were produced on record and that since because of this lapse on the part of the prosecution, there is likelihood of a confusion having been created, it is necessary to clarify the position after the Investigating Officer is asked the questions after being given an opportunity to refresh his memory on the basis of the record and further that although the recovered articles were produced in the court, they were not got identified from the Investigating Officer, by the learned Public Prosecutor due to his negligence. 5. This position is not disputed that the dates mentioned in the statement made on oath by the Investigating Officer regarding the disclosure-statements and the recovery-memos are different than the dates mentioned in the recovery- memos and in the disclosure-statements, the copies of which have been produced on record and further that the learned Public Prosecutor had failed to ask the relevant questions about the identification of the articles from the Investigating Officer. 6. It is true that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill in the lacunae by invoking the powers under Section 311 of the Code, but it also cannot be disputed that if certain clarifications are required to be made for removing any confusion, which may come up in the mind of the learned Presiding Officer and such clarifications are based on the documents already placed on the record, there is no reason why in the interest of justice, the prayer made in this respect should not be allowed. In my view, the learned trial court erred in not allowing the application for re-summoning the Investigating Officer for the purposes of clarification in regard to the dates of the disclosure-statements and the recovery-memos and also in regard to the identification of the articles, stated to have been got recovered by the accused persons concerned. 7. In my view, the learned trial court erred in not allowing the application for re-summoning the Investigating Officer for the purposes of clarification in regard to the dates of the disclosure-statements and the recovery-memos and also in regard to the identification of the articles, stated to have been got recovered by the accused persons concerned. 7. Consequently, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and allow the application under Section 311 of the Code, and direct that the Investigating Officer, Shri Govind Narain, who has been examined as PW 19, be re- summoned, so that, the necessary clarifications can be got done from him on the basis of the record, after he is allowed an opportunity to refresh his memory and also for the purposes of identifying the articles, stated to have been got recovered by the accused persons. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 9. The record of the learned trial court be sent back immediately. *******