Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The two petitioners who figure as accused in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2002 are aggrieved by order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Supaul, whereby he has allowed the petition of the State for recall of P.W. 3 who had already been examined, cross-examined and discharged. 3. It appears from perusal of petition filed by the State on the basis whereof the recall has been allowed that the recall was felt necessary since the alleged witness who was the informant of the case had not deposed in Court in accordance with his statement u/s. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he had not been declared as a hostile witness and that in this view of the matter the re-examination of this witness had become an essential necessity. 4. It is by now well settled that once a witness has been examined, cross-examined and discharged he cannot be summoned or recalled only for the purpose of filling up the loop holes or the lacuna of the defence or the prosecution case. It is only when some new material fact or other material fact which had not been brought to the notice of the Court is required to be looked into in the interest of justice that such recall is permissible. Even otherwise when a witness is recalled it is incumbent upon the petitioner who files the petition for recall to formulate the questions that are to be put to the witness. No such questions have been framed and the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C., in my opinion, has exceeded his jurisdiction in recalling the P.W. 3 only to satisfy the prosecution ego and to assist the prosecution in filling of the loop holes in the prosecution case. 5. Such orders would result in an abuse of the process of the Court and are required to be quashed. 6. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.