MAITHLI SHARAN, J. ( 1 ) - This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused persons/petitioners invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The brief facts of this petition lie in a narrow compass and may be summarised thus: The accused/petitioners were facing Trial in Criminal Case No. 515 of 1995 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, wherein the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded and the accused/petitioners were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the arguments were heard and the case was posted for pronouncing the judgment on 16-7-1998. On which date an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed from the side of the prosecution to recall the four witnesses viz. , Pulia Bai (PW1), Devilal (PW2), Jasoda Bai (PW3) and Rambabu (PW5) for re-examination. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial court the accused/petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1998 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Guna. It was dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, on 16-2-1999. Now the accused! petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the impugned order passed by the Courts below. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsels on both the sides and have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 3 ) TRUE it is, powers are given under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court to summon material witnesses, and in this regard the already examined witnesses may also be recalled and re-examined. Thus, wide discretionary powers lie with the Courts in this connection. However, the discretion given to the Court has to be exercised judicially and not in just a cursory manner. The facts and circumstances have got to be properly analysed and scrutinised and then only such powers could be used. The crux of the matter is that the Trial Court should always keep in mind that there might not occur miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. The facts and circumstances have got to be properly analysed and scrutinised and then only such powers could be used. The crux of the matter is that the Trial Court should always keep in mind that there might not occur miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, it is curious to note that the four prosecution witnesses who were ordered to be recalled for re-examination by the Trial Court had been examined long back on 24-1-1997 and the application for recalling them was filed by the prosecution on 16-7-1998 when the complete prosecution evidence had been over, the accused/petitioners had been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arguments had been heard and the case was posted for judgment. These factual aspects go to indicate that the prosecution had not cared during this period to file application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the fact that the said application was filed after such a long gap by itself goes to point out that it was nothing but only with a view to fill in the lacunae in the prosecution evidence. This is certainly not warranted under law and would be termed as abuse of the process of the Court. If such an order for recalling the witnesses is allowed to stand, it would certainly go to give rise to miscarriage of justice. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion on the factual and legal aspects involved in the case, I find substance in this petition which is, therefore allowed, and the order dated 24- 7-1998 passed by the Trial Court recalling the aforesaid witnesses for being re-examined, and the order dated 16-2-1999 passed by the Revisional Court are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .