P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THESE Criminal Petitions are filed questioning the orders in Crl. RP no. 316 of 2002 and 317 of 2002, dated 25th november, 2002, passed by the Special judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad. ( 2 ) SINCE the parties and the issue involved in both the petitions, are one and the same, they are being disposed of by common order. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner averred in the petitions, relates to allowing of application under Section 311 Cr. PC to recall PW. 1 to file registered Chit agreement, which was not filed earlier. The Trial Court had also recorded reasons as to why the witness has to be recalled and it had also recorded reasons that no prejudice would be caused even if the said document is marked by recalling PW1. The Revisional court had also recorded reasons and held that the discretion exercised by the Trial court does not warrant any interference. Assailing the same, the present Criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr. PC are filed. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public prosecutor. ( 5 ) MR. Niranjan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner in the criminal Petitions, had contended that the purpose for which the recall applications were filed, was only with a view to fill up the lacunae and this is not permissible. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the language of Section 311 cr. PC and also had placed reliance on the decisions reported in Sridhar Das v. State of West Bengal, 1996 Crl. LJ 813, and k. Chokkarao v. A. Veerabhadra Rao, 1999 (2) ALD 239 . ( 6 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor had fairly submitted that for filling up lacunae in the case of prosecution, recalling of a witness in ordinary course, cannot be permitted. However, the learned additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that it is a case of marking a Chit agreement and sufficient reasons had been given by both the Courts-below and inasmuch as the courts-below had recorded convincing reasons and in view of the limitations in exercising power under Section 482 Cr. PC, in matters of this nature, discretion exercised need not be interfered with, since such powers are to be exercised sparingly. ( 7 ) SECTION 311 Cr. PC, in matters of this nature, discretion exercised need not be interfered with, since such powers are to be exercised sparingly. ( 7 ) SECTION 311 Cr. P. C. , which deals with powers of the Court to summon the material witness of examine the person, reads as under:"any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it be essential to the just decision of the case. " ( 8 ) IT is not doubt true that in the judgments in Sridhar Das and K. Chokkarao, (supra), it is held that recalling a witness cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in the prosecution case. But, here is a case where for the purpose of marking a Chit agreement, recall applications were filed and both the Courts-below while exercising discretion, had recorded reasons and negatived the contention advanced by the petitioner to the effect that the applications were filed only with a view of fill up the lacunae. When the Courts-below exercised discretion and allowed an application under section 311 Cr. P. C. , unless there is serious illegality or serious prejudice being caused to the accused, in such matters, the powers under Section 482 Cr. PC, need not be exercised in view of the limitations imposed on exercise of such powers under section 482 Cr. PC. ( 9 ) HENCE, in view of the clear reasons recorded by the Courts-below, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with by this Court by exercising powers under section 482 Cr. PC and accordingly, I do not see any merits in these petitions. ( 10 ) IN the result, the above two Petitions are dismissed.