( 1 ) RULE. Service of Rule is waived by learned APP Mr. S. S. Pat el for respondent No. 1 State and service of Rule is waived by learned counsel Mr. M. J. Buddhbhatti for respondent No. 2-ortginai complainant. With consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel Mr. Tirmizi for learned counsel Mr. Pritesh Parikh for the petitioner. The Court is aware that the case is instituted on a police report and, therefore, the original complainant practically has no say. However, in the interest of justice, say of learned counsel for M. J. Buddhbhatti for the respondent No. 2 original complainant is considered. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has approached this court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. as well as under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner is that request of the learned counsel appearing for the defence side made before the Presiding Judge to recall some of the witnesses for a limited purpose has been wrongly rejected and learned Presiding judge has failed in exercising the discretion in the larger interest of justice. ( 4 ) ON earlier occasion, considering the submissions made by learned APP Mr. Patel and learned counsel Mr. Buddhbhatti for the original complainant, the petitioner was asked to specify the question which the defence counsel intends to ask to the witnesses who are mentioned in the original application Exh. 94 submitted to the trial Court. Today learned counsel Mr. Tirmizi has submitted a list of questions contemplated to be asked to the concerned witnesses, which is taken on record. Learned counsel Mr. Tirmizi appearing for the petitioner has submitted after going through the relevant depositions recorded by the trial Judge, that prosecution Witness No. 3 examined vide exh. 41, and Prosecution Witnesses No. 15 examined vide Exh. 76 and Prosecution Witness No. 17 examined vide Exh. 78, may be recalled and questions mentioned in the list submitted today which is taken on record only may be permitted to be asked to those prosecution witnesses by the learned counsel appearing for the defence side. So, tor this limited purpose, the petitioner may be permitted to recall the concerned witnesses and to asked those questions only to the concerned witnesses. ( 5 ) HAVING considered all relevant aspects including the fact that one Jr. So, tor this limited purpose, the petitioner may be permitted to recall the concerned witnesses and to asked those questions only to the concerned witnesses. ( 5 ) HAVING considered all relevant aspects including the fact that one Jr. Advocate was appearing in the matter as Sr. Counsel was being unwell and under treatment, some technical errors have been cropped up. Ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, New dehli, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2292 : (1999 cri LJ 3529) positively will help the petitioner. Of course, this case relates to an error cropped up because of some error committed by the learned P. P. , but the Apex court has observed that power of the Court is plenary to summon or even recall any winess at any stage of the case if the Court considers it necessary "for a just decision". The Apex Court has further observed that (Para 6 of AIR) :-"a lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight committed by a Public Prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage "to err is human" is the recognition of he possibility of making mistakes to which humans are proned. A corollary of any such laches or mistakes during the conducting of case cannot fill up. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally, go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in-trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitt, such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. " ( 6 ) AS the parties have not pressed for detailed reasons, the Court is inclined to allow this petition. So, the impugned judgment and order below Exh. 94 dated 15-9-2004 passed by learned Jt. " ( 6 ) AS the parties have not pressed for detailed reasons, the Court is inclined to allow this petition. So, the impugned judgment and order below Exh. 94 dated 15-9-2004 passed by learned Jt. District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track court No. 7, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 73/2000 is hereby quashed and set aside and learned trial Judge is hereby directed to recall Prosecution Witness Nos. 3, 5 and 17, of course it would be proper to recall witness No. 15 after examination of witness no. 17, for a limited purpose and learned trial Judge shall permit defence side to ask/ put before those witnesses, only those questions as stated in the list of question tendered today before the Court by learned counsel Mr. Tirmizi. Learned Counsel Mr. Tirmizi shall see that copy of the list containing questions tendered today before the court is sent to the learned counsel appearing before the trial Court on behalf of defence side so that he can ask only those questions to the prosecution witnesses so recalled. No more opportunity to cross-examine the recalled witnesses shall be offered. However, it is clarified that it will be open for the learned P. P. to ask questions in reexamination in case of exigency. Directions accordingly. ( 7 ) RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. D. S. permitted. Petition allowed.