JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 5.10.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has permitted the prosecution to re-call the Medical Officer and also for exhibiting the document filed along with the application. 2. In this case, the accused-petitioner is facing trial for the offence under section 302 [PC since 1986 along with one Jagjeet singh. Charges have been framed and three prosecution witnesses have been examined. The statement of PW 1 Dr. Ramlal was recorded on 19.3.1987. The accused has an opportunity to cross-examine the above witness. Similarly the prosecution was also given an opportunity to re-examine the above witness. 3. However, complainant Gurdiyal Singh moved an application through the Public Prosecutor under section 311 Cr.P.C. praying for re- calling the Medical Officer and also for permission to exhibit the document filed along with the application. The said application was stoutly opposed by the accused-petitioner on the ground that by moving the above application, the prosecution wanted to fill up the gap left by it. It was contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that powers under section 311 Cr.P.C. are wide in nature but they cannot be exercised by the Court to the detriment of the accused when the only object of the prosecution is to afford an opportunity to it to fill up the lacunae left by it in the evidence. 4. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge felt inclined to afford an opportunity to the prosecution to re-examine the above witness, by the impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. I have carefully gone through the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the application moved by Gurdiyalsingh is vague inasmuch as it does not state the question which was left unasked by the prosecution from the Medical Officer. It does not specify the document sought to be exhibited in evidence by the prosecution. A perusal of the document sought to be produced by the prosecution shows that the SHO received a clarification from the Medical Officer as back as on 14.7.1986. It does not specify the document sought to be exhibited in evidence by the prosecution. A perusal of the document sought to be produced by the prosecution shows that the SHO received a clarification from the Medical Officer as back as on 14.7.1986. Thus, the prosecution was negligent in not filing this document along with the challan or before the examination of the witness. Hence, by passing the impugned order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has provided an opportunity to the prosecution to fill up the gap left by it. He further submitted that the accused petitioner is facing this trial since 1986 and if such an order is passed in a routine way, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and it would result in prolonging the trial. 7. In support of his above contentions, the learned counsel has cited Khumana Ram v. State, 1996 (1) RCD 24 (Raj.) and Narayan Das v. Union of India, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 249 . 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order on the ground that due to inadvertence, the Public Prosecutor appearing before the learned trial Court could not ask the opinion of the Medical Officer as to whether the injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Similarly, the Doctor gave clarification on the application moved by the SHO and it was a very important document and there is no doubt about the genuineness of the document sought to be exhibited. 9. I have considered the rival contentions made at the bar. In Narayan Das's case (supra), while dealing with the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C, this Court made the following observations : "By taking shelter u /s. 311 Cr.P.C., Court cannot act as investigating agency by recalling a witness inasmuch the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution, more so when the omission is a deliberate one. It cannot be gainsaid that Section 311 Cr.P.0 confers un-bridled powers on the Court to recall any witness for re-examination but the Courts have to exercise this discretion in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. It cannot be gainsaid that Section 311 Cr.P.0 confers un-bridled powers on the Court to recall any witness for re-examination but the Courts have to exercise this discretion in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. The Court is restricted to exercise this power in the effect of such an order will amount to gives the prosecution an opportunity to fill up the gap left by it in the case.when such an omission is deliberate, exercise of such powers by a trial Court must be checked." In Khumanaram's case (supra), a similar note of caution was given while considering the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. 10. In the instant case, the prosecution was in possession of the document sought to be produced which was issued by the Medical Officer on 14.7.1986. The prosecution has not explained the reasons as to why this important document was not produced along with the challan or at any rate before the examination of the Medical Officer in the witness box. The accused conducted his cross-examination after taking into consideration the documents placed by the prosecution on record and the statements given by the witnesses in examination-in-chief. If the prosecution failed to prove this document on record at the appropriate time, the prayer of the prosecution for affording an opportunity to it to produce the same at this belated stage cannot be acceded. The purpose of moving this application was to prove the fact that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death and that in advertantly, no question in this regard could be asked when the Medical Officer was examined. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution by moving this application and by recalling this witness wants to fill up the gap left by it to the prejudice of the accused. 11. For the above reasons, I hold that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not right in allowing the above application. 12. I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the order dated 5.10.1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh and dismiss the application moved by the prosecution for recalling the Medical Officer in the witness-box mid to produce the document on record annexed with application.Petition allowed. *******