JUDGMENT This petition is preferred by the accused/petitioners under section 482, Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent powers vested in this Court, for recalling P.W. 15, the Investigating Officer Suresh Chandra Sharma, for evidence at the trial. It is contended that although at the trial this witness was examined and cross-examined by the parties, when he appeared in the Court and after his cross-examination, the witness was discharged, but there are certain contradictions which could not be proved by defence through the witness. It is urged that the interests of justice, therefore, demand that the Investigating Officer be recalled. The petitioners further contend that the Court is vested with the powers to recall the witness at any stage of the trial, as such, the delay does not defeat their prayer. The petitioners are facing a trial under sections 147, 148, 307 and 307/149 of IPC. Witness PW 15 Suresh Chandra Sharma appeared in Court, and after his examination-in-chief, the witness was cross-examined by the accused-petitioners at length, but certain contradictions could not be proved through the witness at that time. An application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners for recalling the witness in evidence, at a later stage in the trial Court, which has been dismissed. The petitioners' counsel has relied upon the authority of Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another (1991 Cri.L.J. 1521), to contend that the witness can be recalled/re-examined at any stage of the proceedings. It was also contended that the doctor was still to be examined in evidence by the prosecution. As such, there was no substantial delay in making the prayer of recalling the Investigating Officer. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the relied authority observed that: "18. . . . . Further it is incumbent that due care should be taken by the Court while exercising the power under this section and it should not be used for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution or by the defence......." Admittedly, witness PW 15 Suresh Chandra Sharma had entered the witness-box and was cross-examined by the defence. The witness was discharged after the cross-examination. Then if certain contradictions could not be proved by the defence when the witness was in the witness-box, that is nothing short of the 'lacuna' left in the evidence by the defence. The witness was discharged after the cross-examination. Then if certain contradictions could not be proved by the defence when the witness was in the witness-box, that is nothing short of the 'lacuna' left in the evidence by the defence. The purpose of recalling the witness, as found by their Lordships of Supreme Court, could not be to allow a party to fill up the lacuna left in the case. No new fact is sought to be brought on record through the witness, which may be found to be necessary for the just decision of the case. For the laches of the party, the benefit of provision cannot be invoked. The other authority relied upon by the petitioners' counsel in Gandharvadas v. State of Orissa (1994 Cr.L.J. 294) is distinguishable on facts and is of no avail to the petitioners. The present petition has, therefore, no substance, and is summarily dismissed.