JUDGMENT N. PRUSTY, J. : The petitioner, who is facing trial in S.T. No. 63/159 of 2002 arising out of G. R. Case No.1184 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bhadrak for commis¬sion of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 493, 417 and 376 I.P.C., has filed this Criminal Revision challenging order dated 20.8.2005 wherein the learned trial Court rejected the petition dated 21.7.2005 filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W. 10 (Mayadhar Biswal) for further cross-examination and for examination of one Rama Kanta Swain, Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary school with further prayer to issue summon to said Ramkanta Swain to produce the School Admission Register and School Leaving Certificate Book of Bhandaripada Primary School. The first prayer of the accused-petitioner for recalling P.W.10 was rejected by the learned trial Court relying on a decision in the case of Dara Singh @ Rabindra Kumar Pal and others Vs Republic of India reported in 4(2003) Crimes 252 on the ground that the petitioner has not mentioned anything in the petition with regard to specific question to be put to P.W.10. The second prayer of the petitioner for summoning Ramakanta Swain, Headmaster, Bhandaripada Primary School was rejected on the ground that no documents were filed by the accused-petitioner to satisfy the Court to show existence of those documents in his custody and moreover since the petition was filed at a such belated stage, when the case is fixed for argument, the learned Court was not inclined to allow such prayer. As it appears from the copy of the order sheet filed in this case, P.W.10 (Mayadhar Biswal) was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 15.3.2005 and on the basis of his statements Exts.7/2,8/2,10,10/1,11,11/1 and Ext.A were marked. On 2.4.2005, the accused himself was present in the Court. The defence lawyer and the Addl. Public Prosecutor were also present. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed a memo that all the witnesses were already examined. Keeping in view the memo filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, the prosecution case was closed on that date and the case was adjourned to 4.4.2005 for accused statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner did not file the copies of subsequent orders from 4.4.2005 to 18.5.2005. Public Prosecutor filed a memo that all the witnesses were already examined. Keeping in view the memo filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, the prosecution case was closed on that date and the case was adjourned to 4.4.2005 for accused statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner did not file the copies of subsequent orders from 4.4.2005 to 18.5.2005. Order dated 18.5.2005 indicates that the matter was taken up on that date with regard to transferring the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the ground that the accused-petitioner was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence as per the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Headmaster of Dhusuri M.E. School since the recorded date of birth of the accused-petitioner was 6.3.1986 and the evidence of the Headmaster, Dhusuri M.E. School (P.W.10) also confirms the same. On that date, learned trial Court considering all the materials available on record rejected the prayer to transfer the case to Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry. As it appears from the above order-dated 18.5.2005, no application was filed by the petitioner to recall P.W.10 for further cross-examination indicating the grounds for the same. Certified copies of the orders from 18.5.2005 to 21.7.2005 have not been filed in the case. On 21.7.2005, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-petitioner, which was adjourned to 25.7.2005 for enabling the prosecution to file its objection. Finally, the said petition was considered and disposed of by the impugned order dated 20.8.2005, which is under challenge before this Court in this Criminal Revision. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peti¬tioner submits that P.W.10 (Mayadhar Biswal), Headmaster of Dhusuri M.E. School, where the victim girl and the accused-petitioner were studying, was not a charge-sheeted witness. On the basis of an application filed by the prosecution he was di¬rected to produce the School Admission Register and the School Leaving Certificate Book for the year 1988 to 1996, which are not part of the police record as those documents were not seized during investigation. On 15.3.2005, P.W.10 was examined, cross-examined and discharged. He proved certain documents as stated above. Exts.7 and 8 are the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was men¬tioned as 6.3.1986. On 15.3.2005, P.W.10 was examined, cross-examined and discharged. He proved certain documents as stated above. Exts.7 and 8 are the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was men¬tioned as 6.3.1986. Ext.A is the relevant entry in respect of the petitioner in the School Admission Register. Exts. 10 and 11 are the relevant entries in the School Admission Register and the School Leaving Certificate of the informant, which were also proved by P.W.10. Due to some inadvertence, some relevant ques¬tions regarding the context and genuiness of Exts.10 and 11 were not put to P.W.10 at the time of cross examination, hence his further cross-examination is necessary. Issue of summon to Rama¬kanta Swain, Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School to produce the Admission Register and the School Leaving Certificate Book is necessary since the informant (victim girl) was studying in that school and the entries made in Exts.10 and 11 are based on the records of Bhandaripada Primary School and those entries were made by Shri Ramakanta Swain, and once the above mentioned re¬cords of Bhandaripada Primary School are produced and Ramakanta Swain is examined as defence witness, the correct age of the victim girl can only be traced out. The claim of the accused-petitioner is that the victim was not a minor but a major girl since P.W.8 Dr. D. K. Samantaray, an Orthopedic Specialist had opined on the basis of examination of certain medical report in respect of the victim girl that the victim girl was 19 years old and the statement of P.W.8 can be verified from the entries made in the Admission Register as well as the School Leaving Certifi¬cate Book of Bhandaripada Primary School since the victim girl was earlier studying there and obtained the School Leaving Cer¬tificate for taking admission in Dhusuri M.E. School. Mr. Dhal prays that in the interest of justice, P.W.10 should be recalled for further cross-examination and Ramakanta Swain, Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School should be summoned to produce the School Admission Register and the School Leaving Certificate Book as well as to be examined as a defence witness. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in the cases of Mohanlal Shamijisoni Vs. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in the cases of Mohanlal Shamijisoni Vs. Union of India reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1346, Anandamohan Nanda Vs State of Orissa* reported in (2005)32 OCR 204, Rathia Vs State reported in 93 (2002) CLT 184 and Anita Panda Vs State of Orissa** (2003) 25 OCR 576. For better appreciation of the matter, Section 311 Cr.P.C. is quoted below :- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present-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 and 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.” A bare perusal of Section 311 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the underlying object of this Section is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record of leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The only thing to be determined is as to whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The Section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused or the prosecution. The Section itself is a general one which applies to all the proceedings, enquiry or trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure and empow¬ers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of the proceeding since the Section confers a very wide power on the Court for summoning a witness, the discretion conferred on the Court ought to be exercised judiciously on application of judicial mind. It is the settled position of law that the Court should not permit lacuna in prosecution evidence to be filled up by recalling a witness for further cross-examination. Mistake during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna, which a Court cannot fill up. Advantage of any lacuna in conducting the prosecution case normally goes to the accused in the trial of a case but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated a irreparable lacuna. Mistake during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna, which a Court cannot fill up. Advantage of any lacuna in conducting the prosecution case normally goes to the accused in the trial of a case but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated a irreparable lacuna. This princi¬ple is also equally applicable to the defence. No party in a trial can be forbidden from correcting errors, if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence or special circumstances. In putting relevant questions during cross-examination, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistake to be rectified. The 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. It has also been held that a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be rejected on the sole ground of delay since the same was filed after long lapse of time to recall a witness. In the case of Mohanlal Shamjisoni Vs Union of India (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that the power to summon any person as a witness or to recall or re-examined him can be exer¬cised at any stage of proceeding provided examination of such person is essential for just decision of the case. In the cases of Rathia Vs. State and Anandamohan Nanda Vs State of Orissa (supra), it has been held by this Court that a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be rejected on the sole ground of delay and in the case of Smt. Anita Panda Vs State of Orissa (supra) this Court has also held that for the ends of justice the power vested under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be invoked. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C., it appears that it is always the discretion of the Court to summon, examine or recall, re-examine any witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. Whether any evidence is essential or not depends upon the facts of a particu¬lar case and as to whether any evidence is essential or not is to be determined by the Presiding Judge himself while taking his decision on such a matter. Whether any evidence is essential or not depends upon the facts of a particu¬lar case and as to whether any evidence is essential or not is to be determined by the Presiding Judge himself while taking his decision on such a matter. As such, a Judge is empowered, on his discretion to permit examination and cross-examination of any witness at any stage of the proceeding on sufficient reason. The power of exercising its discretion while considering a prayer for further examination of a witness already examined by recalling the witness at any stage of the enquiry, trial or proceeding and also to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined has been conferred on the Court, and on exercising such power the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person, if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. But while exercising such discretion, the Court should not allow either side for enabling them to fill up the gap or lacuna in their respective case or to improve it by new matter at a later stage and it is only to enable the Court to act if justice so requires. In the instant case, as stated above, P.W.10 (Mayadhar Biswal) Headmaster of Dhusuri M.E. School has been examined on the request of the prosecution on 15.3.2005. He has proved cer¬tain documents, Exts.7 and 8 being the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned and Ext.A is the relevant entry in respect of the petitioner in the School Admission Register. He has been thor¬oughly cross-examined by the defence with regard to his state¬ments as well as the documents proved by him and was discharged on the very same date i.e. 15.3.2005. On the subsequent dates, the accused-petitioner did not file any application for recalling P.W.10 for further examination. In his petition dated 20.4.2005 which was disposed of by order dated 18.5.2005 with regard to transfer of the case to Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry, the petitioner also did not disclose anything with regard to the statement of P.W.10 and the documents proved by him. In his petition dated 20.4.2005 which was disposed of by order dated 18.5.2005 with regard to transfer of the case to Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry, the petitioner also did not disclose anything with regard to the statement of P.W.10 and the documents proved by him. At a much later stage on 21.7.2005 while filing an application for summon¬ing Ramakanta Swain, Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School to produce the School Admission Register and the School Leaving Certificate Book of the said School, the petitioner prayed for recalling P.W.10 for further cross-examination. In the petition, accused-petitioner did not disclose anything as to what were the further questions to be put to P.W.10 on his recall and as to how he shall be prejudiced if P.W.10 is not recalled for further examination. As it appears from the order sheet, which has been filed by the petitioner in this case, P.W.10 was examined, proved certain documents and also cross-examined by the defence and nothing remains for further cross-examination. The contents of documents which have been proved by the said witness (P.W.10) can always be relied upon by both the prosecution as well as the defence at the stage of argument and the relevancy or irrelevancy of those documents can be determined at the stage of final hear¬ing, since the same are the matters of record. Once some docu¬ments are filed and proved by the respective witness, it becomes a part of the Court record and the either side can refer to any part thereof at the stage of final argument. Further more, once either side files any document and the same is accepted/marked, it becomes a part of record of the Court, nobody can take away any part thereof from the record and the same can be relied upon by either side. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, recalling of P.W.10, Mayadhar Biswal, and Headmaster of Dhusuri M.E. School for further cross-examination is not required to arrive at a just decision of the case and neither side should be allowed to fill up their lacuna or improve their case at a later stage and as such, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the accused-petitioner for recalling P.W.10 for further cross-examination. So far as the prayer for summoning Ramakanta Swain-Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School to be examined as a witness and to produce the School Admission Register and the School Leaving Certificate Book of Bhandaripada Primary School where the victim girl was previously reading for verification of the Court, is concerned, the said prayer was also made in the petition dated 21.7.2005 i.e.after recording the statement of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after filing of a memo dated 20.6.2005 stating that the accused would not adduce any defence evidence and the case was fixed for argument after one adjournment. The factual backdrop of the case in this regard clearly indicates that P.W.10 Mayadhar Biswal even though was not a charge sheeted witness and the documents which were filed and proved by him were not a part of police records, the said witness was examined and the records were produced and proved by him at the request of the prosecution, since in that School the inform¬ant Kumari Anupama Samal and the petitioner were studying. This witness was brought to be examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused-petitioner was a major and the informant victim girl was a minor at the time of occurrence. As per the evidence of P.W.10, there is some overwriting in the School Admission Register with regard to the date of birth of the informant. P.W.10 has also stated that the School Admission Register was damaged in the Super Cyclone for which he has pasted some papers on it and only after receiving summon from the Court his Assistant Teacher entered the date of birth of the informant as 3.4.1986 in different coloured ink. The plea of the present petitioner in his application to issue summon to Ramakanta Swain, Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School, is that he has originally prepared the records and made the entries with regard to the date of birth of the informant, since the informant was initially reading in the said school and later on getting her transfer certificate from Bhandaripada Primary School she came to Dhusuri M.E. School. In the records of Dhusuri M.E. School entries such as Exts.7, 8, 10 and 11 etc. were made on the basis of the certificate granted by the Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School. In the records of Dhusuri M.E. School entries such as Exts.7, 8, 10 and 11 etc. were made on the basis of the certificate granted by the Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School. If the Headmas¬ter of Bhandaripada Primary School is summoned to be examined and produces the relevant records, the age of the informant (victim girl) at the time of occurrence can be well determined and the same is very much required/relevant for just decision of the case; keeping in view the statement of the Doctor (P.W.8) who has determined the age of the victim girl to be 19 years. As such, for determining as to whether both the accused-petitioner and the victim girl were minor or major at the time of occurrence, the learned Court ought to have allowed the prayer for examining Ramakanta Swain and for producing the records of Bhandaripada Primary School as the same will also be helpful for arriving at a just decision of the case. It would have been appropriate for the learned trial Court to give a chance to the accused-petitioner to adduce evidence on his behalf by examining Ramakanta Swain, since the relevant entry made in the School Admission Register of Dhusuri M.E. School was damaged in the Super Cyclone and later on after receipt of summon for examining P.W.10, subsequent entry with regard to the date of birth of the informant was made by the Assistant Teacher of the said school. The informant-victim girl was previously reading in Bhandaripada Primary School wherefrom she came to Dhusuri M.E. School after getting her transfer certificate and as such age of the victim girl could have been determined from the entry made in the School Admission Register of Bhandaripada Primary School. In view of the above, order dated 20.8.2005 of the learned Addl. The informant-victim girl was previously reading in Bhandaripada Primary School wherefrom she came to Dhusuri M.E. School after getting her transfer certificate and as such age of the victim girl could have been determined from the entry made in the School Admission Register of Bhandaripada Primary School. In view of the above, order dated 20.8.2005 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bhadrak passed in S.T. No.63/159 of 2002 is set aside only to the extent of reject¬ing the prayer of the accused-petitioner for summoning Ramakanta Swain, Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School and for produc¬ing the School Admission Register and the School Leaving Certifi¬cate Book of that school and the learned trial Court is directed to summon Ramakanta Swain, Headmaster of Bhandaripada Primary School to be examined as a witness on behalf of the defence and to produce the School Admission Register and the School Leaving Certificate Book and to prove the relevant entries made therein as expeditiously as possible and conclude the case as early as practicable. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed in part. Cri. Rev. allowed in part.