M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel on both sides. ( 2 ) THE moot point involved in this case is as to whether at the fag end of the trial, the learned Magistrate was right in permitting the recall of a witness and the reopening of the evidence. The respondent-authorities had prosecuted the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 107 of 1988. This case was substantially heard and had reached the stage where the statements of the accused were almost completed. At that point of time, an application was filed praying for recall of P. W. 2 on the ground that several documents, which had been produced, had not been marked as exhibits. The contention of the prosecution was that it was very necessary to exhibit these documents and that consequently, P. W. 2 should be recalled. The learned Magistrate granted the application and it is this order that is challenged in the present revision petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is impermissible in law to permit the reopening of the evidence virtually after the accused statements have been recorded. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence act are very clear with regard to the manner and order in which witnesses are to be examined and documents are to be produced. Quite apart from this sequence, there is also a principle of finality with regard to the evidence and once the prosecution has closed its case and the accused have made their statements, it is not permissible to permit the reopening of the evidence. Particularly in a criminal trial, where an accused is required to state his defence and where the burden of proving the charges rests entirely on the prosecution, the principle of finality assumes some significance. It needs to be emphasised, that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and the prosecution has to discharge this burden in the manner and within the time prescribed by law. If anything has gone by default, it is the prosecution that will have to suffer for it. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has sought to defend the order because he submits that the trial was not over. If anything has gone by default, it is the prosecution that will have to suffer for it. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has sought to defend the order because he submits that the trial was not over. He also contends that it is in the interest of justice that the prosecution be given a fair opportunity of exhibiting the documents and if for any reason this was not done earlier that the learned Magistrate was justified in permitting the application. Learned counsel also submits that if P. W. 2 is recalled that the accused will have the right of cross-examining and that, therefore, no prejudice whatsoever is caused. On the other hand, he submits that serious damage would be done to the prosecution case if the learned Magistrate had not granted the application. ( 5 ) I am unable to uphold these submissions. I have to take cognizance of the fact that this trial had been dragged on for 6 years and that P. W. 2 had been examined earlier. It is not as though some witness who was not earlier available had become available and that, therefore, the prosecution requested that they be allowed to produce that evidence. On the facts and circumstances bf this case, the petitioner is justified in objecting to the reopening of the trial after the prosecution has closed its case. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the position in law, the order dated31-3-1994 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The interim stay stands vacated and it is directed that the trial court shall take up the trial from the point at which it was stayed and complete the same expeditiously. The petition stands disposed of. --- *** --- .