ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is, whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing the request made by the petitioners to permit them to cross-examine P.W. 1. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Trial Court has refused to grant permission to the petitioners to cross-examine P.W. I solely on the ground that the application is devoid of merits and they have not disclosed in their application as to what questions the petitioners intend to put to P.W. 1. It was further submitted that the ruling referred to by the Trial Court is not properly considered by the Trial Judge inasmuch as the observations of the Apex Court, which is referred to in the very same judgment of Gujarat High Court goes to indicate that the Court should be magnanimous to permit, 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. 4. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C., I am of the view that the petitioners have clearly mentioned in the application that some more material evidence has come to the notice of the petitioners and as such it is necessary to cross-examine P.W. 1 on this aspect. 5. The Apex Court in the case in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in-charge, Delhi" has observed in para 6 as under: "A lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fallout 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 in human" is the recognition of the possibility of making mistake 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 adage “to err in human" is the recognition of the possibility of making mistake 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 permitting, 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. In the light of the foregoing observations of the Apex Court and in view of the fact that the petitioners have made clear in their application that some of the material beneficial to the defence has come to light, it is just and necessary to permit the petitioners to cross-examine P.W. 1 only on the limited aspect of the case and not beyond that. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 15-12-2005 is set aside and the petitioners permitted to cross-examine P.W. 1 and the Trial Court shall fix the for cross-examination of P.W. 1. On the said date the petitioners shall cross-examine the said witness to the limited extent as prayed for in the application. No further adjournment shall be sought for, for this purpose.