VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the order passed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad dated 18-1-2000 in Crl. M. P. No. 9349 of 1999 in C. C. No. 1049 of 1998 in which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for recalling P. W. 1 and marking a document was dismissed. ( 2 ) CONSIDERING the nature of the matter and the order proposed to be passed by me, i do not think it necessary to give notice to the second respondent herein. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein is the complainant in the said C. C. No. 1049 of 1998. The complainant s evidence was closed and the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Subsequently, the case was posted for arguments. At that stage on behalf of the complainant a petition was filed under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for marking a document namely the authorisation to the complainant to prosecute the case on behalf of the company. The said document was said to be in the file. That petition was allowed. However, when the case was posted to 18-11-1999, the complainant was absent and hence the document, which was permitted to be marked, could not be got marked. However, the learned Magistrate condoned the absence of the complainant but closed the evidence of the complainant and the matter was posted for arguments. At that time another application under Section 311 cr. P. C. was filed on behalf of the complainant for marking the same document in respect of which the Court has already allowed him to recall P. W. 1. This petition has been dismissed under the impugned orders. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that this amounts to recalling or reviewing the order passed by him earlier under which after condoning the personal attendance of the complainant he closed the evidence of the complainant on the ground that he had no powers to review his own order. The learned Magistrate seems to have relied upon a judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Bindeshwari prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh. It would appear that the learned Magistrate has completely mis-took the principle laid down in, this judgment. The learned Magistrate seems to have relied upon a judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Bindeshwari prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh. It would appear that the learned Magistrate has completely mis-took the principle laid down in, this judgment. In the facts relating to that case the magistrate had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr. P. C. on the ground that the averments in the complaint are so trivial that they are covered by Section 95 IPC and as such no case was made out. However, on a second complaint in respect of the same set of facts the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence. It was under these circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate was not competent to review his earlier order. As is obvious, that was a judicial order passed in the criminal complaint which put an end to the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated by the complainant. Thus, obviously, the principle laid down in the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. In this case the learned magistrate had already on an earlier occasion allowed a petition filed on behalf of the complainant for recalling P. W. 1 and marking a document which was already in the file. The complainant could not take advantage of this order as on the date of hearing the complainant himself was absent. The learned Magistrate had condoned the personal attendance of the complainant, but however, closed the evidence. On the next date of hearing the complainant was admittedly present and he moved an application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. to mark a document which was already in the file. The fact that earlier application in this regard was allowed would indicate that the document in question was sufficiently important which led the learned Magistrate to allow it to be marked by recalling P. W. 1. The mere intervening fact that on the date of hearing the complainant was absent would be no reason for depriving the complainant of an opportunity for pressing into service the order that was already passed in his favour. The mere intervening fact that on the date of hearing the complainant was absent would be no reason for depriving the complainant of an opportunity for pressing into service the order that was already passed in his favour. When a second petition was filed for the same purpose and when the complaint was present in the Court and when the document in question was already in the file, there was no reason why the learned magistrate could not have allowed P. W. 1 to be recalled for marking the document in question. Under these circumstances, to subserve the interests of justice, the order of the learned Magistrate is quashed. The petitioner/complainant shall be permitted to recall P. W. I for the purpose of marking the document in question. ( 5 ) THIS petition is ordered accordingly.