Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code hereinafter), the petitioner complainant has challenged order dated 210.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 106/2004 whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by accused-non-petitioner No. 2 under Section 311 CrPC, and petitioner PW. 1 Girdhari Lal was recalled alongwith his income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 for the purpose of further cross-examination. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order passed by the trial Court. 3. From the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the trial Court came to the conclusion that recalling of the petitioner and production of his income-tax returns for the Assessment Years aforesaid is essential for the just decision of the case in order to avoid failure of justice. 4. In Rajendra Prasad vs. The Narcotic Cell through its Officer in Charge, Delhi, 1999 CrLR 434 (SC), Honble Supreme Court held that 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 over sight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be fore-closed 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. 5. In Mohan Lal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1991 (Suppl. 1) SC 271, while interpreting Section 311 CrPC, Honble Supreme Court held that the very usage of the words such as any Court, at any stage or of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, any person and any such person, clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow for any discretion but it binds and compels the Court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. 6. Section 311 of the Code provides that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings 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. 7. Thus, when it appears to the Court that summoning or recalling or re-examining of any such person whose evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case, then the Court had no option but to summon or recall such witness in order to do complete justice between the parties. 8. In the instant case, while exercising the power under Second part of Section 311, CrPC, the trial Court recalled the witness PW . 1 alongwith his income tax returns for the Assessment Years aforesaid. In my view, the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any error, illegality or perversity. 9. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 012.2005 is vacated. Stay petition is dismissed.