P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. G. Krishna Murthy and smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience, to quash the proceeding sin Crl. MP. No. 89/2002 in S. C. No. 1045/2000 on the file of Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, dt. 11-10-2002 and direct the learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Tenali to recall P. W. 1 to p. W. 3 to cross-examine them in the interest of justice and pass such other appropriate orders. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: the petitioner is Accused No. 2 in S. C. No. 1045/2000 on the file of Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali and there were three accused including the petitioner. During the pendency of trial, A-1 died and the petitioner and A-3 are facing the trial for the offence under Section 307ipc. It was also stated that the prosecution examined P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 in the month of April, 2002 and on that day the petitioners counsel could not examine P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the learned assistant Sessions Judge closed the cross- examination. Later on, an application was filed in Crl. M. P. No. 30/2002 to recall P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the said application was allowed on 25-1-2002, subject to payment of batta. It is also stated that the counsel representing the accused became a Public Prosecutor and as such he could not pay the batta and the petition was dismissed on 9-8-2000. It is further stated that another fresh application was filed through an Advocate to recall p. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the said application was ultimately allowed on 23-9-2000 on payment of deposit of Rs. 100/- each and posted the matter to 1-10-2002. It is also stated that on 1-10-2002, the Prosecution did not produce p. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the Court had ordered fresh summons and posted the matter to 9-10-2002. The summons were sent to P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 for the second time, but they did not attend the Court on 9-10-2002 and hence the said application was closed. As stated supra, both the applications were dismissed. The summons were sent to P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 for the second time, but they did not attend the Court on 9-10-2002 and hence the said application was closed. As stated supra, both the applications were dismissed. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed another application i. e. , Crl. M. P. No. 89/2002 and the said application was dismissed on 11-10-2002 by the learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Tenali on the ground that the earlier applications were dismissed and had posted the matter to 23-12-2002 for hearing. It is further stated that the petitioner filed the criminal Revision Petition is C. F. R. No. 3128 of 2002 on the file of Sessions Judge, Guntur and the said application was dismissed on 11-12-2002. It is further stated that cross- examination of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 is very essential for the just decision in the above case and if opportunity is not given to the petitioner, he will be put to serious loss. ( 4 ) SRI K. G. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had contended that the powers conferred on the court under Section 311 of the Code are very wide and unfortunately the trial Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and had deprived the petitioner of the valuable right of cross-examination by dismissing the application to recall the witnesses. The learned Counsel also submitted that the dismissal of other applications are due to reasons which had been specified supra and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be penalized. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic cell, Through its Officer in Charge, Delhi. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned smt. K. Sesharajyam, the learned Public prosecutor had contended that the conduct of the petitioner is definitely blameworthy and it is because of his own default he was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned Public Prosecutor also had taken me through the contents of the petition and also the other records and had contended that because of the negligent attitude on the part of the petitioner, the learned Judge was left with no other option except to dismiss the application to recall p. W. 1 to P. W. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor also had taken me through the contents of the petition and also the other records and had contended that because of the negligent attitude on the part of the petitioner, the learned Judge was left with no other option except to dismiss the application to recall p. W. 1 to P. W. 3. However, in all fairness, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the powers under Section 311 of the Code are no doubt very wide, but there must be reasons to exercise such power. ( 6 ) HEARD both the counsel and also perused the material available on record. ( 7 ) THE fact that the other applications were dismissed is not in dispute at all. The petitioner moved the third application and the said application also was dismissed. If the contents of the petition are looked into, no convincing grounds had been raised for the purpose of exercising discretion under section 311 of the Code. As against the said order, it also appears that a Criminal revision Petition was preferred in C. F. R. No. 3128/2002 on the file of the Court of session, Guntur wherein the Court of Session while dealing with the petition under section 397 of the Code had made the following order:"heard. THE impugned order dismissing the application filed U/sec. 311 Cr. P. C. discloses that three petitions filed previously on the same grounds were dismissed by the lower Court. The learned Counsel cited a ruling of himachal Pradesh High Court rendered in Dwaraka Das v. State of H. P. reported in 1980 Crll. J. 1018 wherein it is held that court rejecting an application to recall witness is an interlocutory order and therefore no revision lies against such an order, but the order could be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. I have perused the order made by the lower Court. It is purely an interlocutory order. There fore the petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. Hence the petition is rejected. "in view of the fact that it was held that inasmuch as it is only an interlocutory order and no Revision lies against the said order in the present Criminal Petition the order in crl. M. P. No. 89/2002 in S. C. No. 1045/2000 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions judge, Tenali dated 11-10-2002 itself is questioned. "in view of the fact that it was held that inasmuch as it is only an interlocutory order and no Revision lies against the said order in the present Criminal Petition the order in crl. M. P. No. 89/2002 in S. C. No. 1045/2000 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions judge, Tenali dated 11-10-2002 itself is questioned. ( 8 ) SECTION 311 of the Code dealing with the power to summon material witness or examine person present specifies as follows:"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 to be essential to the just decision of the case. "it is no doubt true that the powers conferred on the Court under Section 311 of the Code are wide. But that does not mean that the petitioner/accused can take advantage of his own default and contend before the Court that whatever may be the circumstances the discretionary power of recalling the witnesses has to be exercised only in his favour. The liberality of exercise of power in recalling the witnesses cannot be stretched too far and the same should be within the permissible limits only. It is no doubt true that the right of an accused to cross-examine the witnesses is a very valuable right. But, at the same time, the accused also cannot take undue advantage and make unreasonable request by resorting to the filing of repeated applications, which cannot be encouraged. A balance has to be maintained by the Courts between exercising the power to recall witnesses under Sec. 311 of the Code and the accused trying to misutilise the same by resorting to unreasonable tactics to delay the proceedings. It is needless to say that the conduct of the petitioner in non-prosecuting the prior application by non-payment of batta is no doubt a blameworthy conduct. But however, it is explained that under certain peculiar circumstances since the counsel became a public Prosecutor, certain events had happened. It is needless to say that the conduct of the petitioner in non-prosecuting the prior application by non-payment of batta is no doubt a blameworthy conduct. But however, it is explained that under certain peculiar circumstances since the counsel became a public Prosecutor, certain events had happened. In the decision referred (1) supra, no doubt it was held that witness can be recalled and resummoned under Section 311 of the Code but however the power under the Section cannot be exercised to fill up lacunae in the Prosecution case. ( 9 ) IN the present case on hand, the petitioner/accused No. 1 is coming up before this Court complaining that if opportunity is not provided for cross-examining P. W. 1 to p. W. 3, serious prejudice will be caused to him. Keeping in vie w the object of the criminal trial and also for providing an opportunity to the accused since the accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses and also keeping in view the prejudice which will be caused to the petitioner if these witnesses - P. W. 1 to p. W. 3, are not cross-examined by the petitioner and with a view to do substantial justice, I am inclined to set aside the order made in Crl. M. P. No. 89/2002 in S. C. No. 1045/2002 on the file of Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali. But however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the following discretion is issued: ( 10 ) THE learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Tenali shall fix a date for the production of witnesses P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and on such date fixed the petitioner shall cross- examine these witnesses, and in default of cross-examining these witnesses on the specified date as may be directed by the learned Principal Assistant Jessions Judge, tenali, the petitioner will be forfeiting his right of cross-examining the witnesses and no such further applications be entertained at the instance of the petitioner in this regard. ( 11 ) THE Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly.