JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 12-1-94, passed by the Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, by which the earned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application under Section 243(2). Cr.P.C, filed on behalf of the accused and re-called the witnesses. 2. Accused-respondents Durga Lal, Jugal Kishore, Kanti Prasad, Norat Mal, Trilok Chand, Smt. Sharda and Smt. Radha are facing trial in a Court of the learned Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Parbatsar, for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 324, IPC The witnesses PW-3 Anandi Lal, PW-4 Dayal Shanker, PW-5 Babu Lal and PW-6 Naibada Shanker were examined on 15-9-89 the learned counsel for the accused cross-examined these witnesses. The prosecution closed its evidence on 24-2-93. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313. Cr.P.C. and the next date was feed for recording the statements of the defence witnesses. In the meanwhile, on 25 9-83, an application under Section 243(2). Cr.P C., was moved on behalf of the accused for further cross-examining the witnesses Babu Lal, Narbada Shanker, Anandi Lal and Daya Shanker. This application was opposed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor but the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 12-1-93, allowed the application filed on behalf of the accused and recalled the witnesses Babu Lal, Narbada Shanker, Anandi Lal and Daya Shanker for further cross-examination regarding the presence of Trilok Chand, Smt. Radha and Smt. Sharda. It is against this order that the complainant has filed this miscellaneous petition. Learned Public Prosecutor has, also, supported the complainant and challenged me order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for lie petitioner that the aforesaid witnesses were examined in the year 1989 and at the fagend of the trial - when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was closed long before - the learned Magistrate was not justified in recalling these witnesses and to allow the defence to fill-up the lacuna left-out by the defence. 4. Witnesses Babu Lal, Narbada Shanker, Anandi Lal and Daya Shanker, who have been ordered to be recalled by the learned Magistrate, were examined in the year 1989 in the presence of the accused and their counsel A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted of these witnesses. 4. Witnesses Babu Lal, Narbada Shanker, Anandi Lal and Daya Shanker, who have been ordered to be recalled by the learned Magistrate, were examined in the year 1989 in the presence of the accused and their counsel A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted of these witnesses. It was expected from the learned counsel for the accused to have put all the questions to the witnesses in the cross-examination at the time of their cross-examination. If so me questions were left-over at that stage then merely on that ground the witnesses cannot be recalled. Had it been a case of complete non-cross-examination of these witnesses on account of the absence of the learned counsel for the accused then the--accused could have been given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses but when once the witnesses were cross-examined at length and if some questions could not be put to them by the learned counsel for the accused then the witnesses, on that count, cannot be recalled because if that will be allowed then there will be no end of trial and at any stage an application to this effect can be made and the witnesses will be recalled. 5. Further, the application deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay, also. In the present case, the aforesaid witnesses were examined on 15-4-89 and the prosecution evidence was closed on 24-2-93 and the case was fixed for recording the statements of the defence witnesses. The application for recalling the aforesaid witnesses has been made at the fag-end of the trial, i.e., after about more than 41/2 years from the date when these witnesses were examined and cross-examined. No reason has been given by the learned counsel for the accused in the application why the application was moved after such a delay. 6. In this view of the matter, the order, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, deserves to be quashed and set-aside.In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed and the order dated 12-1-94, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, recalling the witnesses Babu Lal. Narbada Shanker, Anandi Lal and Daya Shanker, for further cross-examination, is set-aside.Petition allowed. *******