Judgment : 1. The factual matter is as follows: The case in Crime No.865 of 2005 came to be registered on the file of the respondent police against the petitioner on 11. 2005 under Section 302, IPC. It is alleged that three months prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner picked up quarrel with one Elango in the Brandy shop and they had forgotten about the incident and became friends. 1.1 One Jayanthi, wife of Elango, laid a Complaint stating that her husband was hospitalized with bleeding injuries and she was informed that the accused stabbed the deceased with broken bottle and caused injuries on his neck. The case was taken on file in PPC. No.12 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate, which was later committed to the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode for trial. The trial was over and it is on the verge of completion. A Petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was filed by prosecution before the said Court to examine P.W.8, Arumugam, Inspector of Police (Finger Prints) to mark certain documents. They are as follows: (1) Photo enlargement of chance point marked as “A2”, (2) Photo enlargement of specimen right thumb print marked as “accused”, (3) Opinion of the Finger Print Expert. 1. 2 In the Petition, it is stated that the documents are filed to establish the prosecution case. The allegations in the Petition were confronted in the counter filed on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court by stating that the Petition has been filed only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution evidence, that there was ample opportunity for prosecution to produce all the documents at the earliest point of time, that nowhere it was alleged that under whose custody the documents were kept, that the accused denies the genuineness of those documents and opposes the mode of proof, that the prosecution should have produced all the documents at the time of filing the charge-sheet and that without taking recourse to Section 173(8), Cr.P.C., the filing of present Petition is not maintainable. .1.3 Before entering into the discussion with regard to rival submissions, it is profitable to extract Section 311, Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: .“311 . .1.3 Before entering into the discussion with regard to rival submissions, it is profitable to extract Section 311, Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: .“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 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.” 2. In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311, Cr.P.C. are enacted whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding, or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any witness already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. An opportunity of rebuttal is always open to the other party. 3. The power conferred under Section 311, Cr.P.C. should be invoked by the Court only in the ends of justice. The power is exercisable only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised judiciously. 4. The word “at any stage” would include the stage in which the evidence of both sides have been taken and the case is adjourned the judgment. The employment of the phraseology “at any stage” would qualify the exercise of power of the Court under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to permit any party to examine and to avail any of the remedies set out under Section 311, Cr.P.C., if the Court reasonably believes or thinks it jut and proper and the said evidence would be very much essential to arrive at a proper conclusi on. .5. “Trial”, within the meaning of the Section terminates with the pronouncement of judgment. Hence term “trial” would include the stage of pronouncing judgment. Until that stage is reached, the law permits the Court to take fresh evidence enabling it by the Section for the just decision of the case. The enquiry or trial in a criminal proceedings finds its quietus when the judgment is pronounced and until then, the Court can exercise power. 6. Until that stage is reached, the law permits the Court to take fresh evidence enabling it by the Section for the just decision of the case. The enquiry or trial in a criminal proceedings finds its quietus when the judgment is pronounced and until then, the Court can exercise power. 6. The law expects a Presiding Officer of a Criminal Court to call “any person as a witness” under the said Section, but he should inform the parties before any names and the documents which are proposed to be worked through them. 7. It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available should be brought before the Court to prove a fact or the points in issue. Section 311, Cr.P.C., allows the Court to invoke the inherent power. However, order to be passed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. being a judicial act which should emerge on sound principles of justice and equity, though the powers conferred by the Section and the Court are very wide. When a particular provision vests unbridled power in the Court, then prudent thinking, cautious acting and sense of equity must be seen in the attitude of the Court. If the Court feels that when the prosecution makes attempt to fill up the lacuna in its evidence on record so as to endanger the rights of the accused, the Court may under Circumstances with reference to attending factors in the particular case, may turn down the request. 8. Bearing in mind the legal background as mentioned above, as per the well settled principles of law, the request of the prosecution in the present case has to be considered. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India & another, 1991 LW (Crl.) 284 : AIR 1991 SC 1346 , wherein, their Lordships held as follows: “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’ in Section 540 (corresponding to Section 311 of the new Code) clearly spells out that this Sections expressed in the widest possible terms and does not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. ‘any person’ and ‘any such person’ in Section 540 (corresponding to Section 311 of the new Code) clearly spells out that this Sections expressed in the widest possible terms and does 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 should be 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.” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited the decision of this Court in A. Radhakrishnan v. Income-Tax Officer, City Circle, Madras, 2001 (2) MWN (Cr.) 265, wherein, this Court has referred two earlier decisions of this Court in Govindareddy v. State, 1991 LW (Crl.) 42, and N. Lakshmanan v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 1991 LW (Crl.) 475 and held that the Judicial Magistrate had committed an error in allowing the Petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to enable the prosecution to fill in the lacunae, though the respondent had an opportunity at the time of trial to examine the witnesses. In this case, two judgments of the Apex Court have been referred. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution filed Application under Sections 246(6) and 311, Cr.P.C. prior to examine the witnesses Nos.6 to 10 mentioned in the Complaint, which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate. But this Court, after scrutiny of the materials, has held that in order to fill in the lacunae, the prosecution had taken steps. However, the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different. Here, only the prosecution evidence is going on and as per the guideline set out by the Honourable Supreme Court, till the case reaches the stage of pronouncement of the judgment, the Court can very well exercise the power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited another decision of this Court in Govindareddy v. State, 1991 LW (Crl.) 42, wherein also the identical principle has been discussed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited another decision of this Court in Govindareddy v. State, 1991 LW (Crl.) 42, wherein also the identical principle has been discussed. In this decision, it is held that the prosecution having failed to examine material witnesses, at several stages, cannot be later permitted to fill in lacuna after the defect was pointed out during the course of arguments. The facts of the present case are distinguishable as cited supra. .12. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, further relied the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Balwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 Cri.LJ 1374, wherein, it is held that if the witnesses were sought to be recalled after stage of final arguments, the weapon was used from edge side or blunt side, it would be improper use of discretion. In this decision, various judgments have been referred and the facts of the case were discussed. However, the principles laid down by the Rajasthan High Court are not at all helping the petitioner. Now, we have to see whether the request of the prosecution could be accepted following the legal principles. 13. In the case on hand, all the witnesses were examined and they were subjected to cross-examination by the accused. It is the bottom line contention of the petitioner that if the documents sought to be marked were brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, it will prejudice the rights of the accused. The Trial Court has discussed about the merits of the case. The order of the Trial Court goes to the effect that the Inspector of Police (Finger Prints), who has been mentioned as 30th witnesses in the charge-sheet, has been examined as P.W.18 in the case. His statement would be to the effect that after getting instruction from the Investigating Officer, he proceeded to the site of crime, lifted the Finger Prints and gave a report after comparison of finger prints available in the scene of crime with that of the accused. On 112. 2006, P.W.18 was examined in Chief-examination in part. Through him, the finger prints comparison reports P.15 and P.16 have been marked. On 112. 2006, P.W.18 was examined in Chief-examination in part. Through him, the finger prints comparison reports P.15 and P.16 have been marked. He has also deposed that he collected three finger prints on the broken beer bottles in front of the thatched shed near Government wine shop in Kilampalayam and fount that the finger prints were found similar to those of the accused. The list of documents sought to be received by the Court shows the photo enlargement of finger prints from the accused, the specimen right thumb print of the accused and the opinion of the finger print expert. 14. In view of this Court, the documents mentioned above are not at all new to the case. They are only related to the records already marked before the Court through P.W.18. Only if the documents requested to be received, were placed before the Court for its perusal, a complete discussion in the matter can be undertaken and the truth would come out. The refusal to receive the additional evidence on the part of the Court at its threshold, would result in failure of justice. In order to arrive at a just conclusion, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the Court has got enormous powers to entertain a party to examine any witness. .15. Following the principles laid down in the decisions referred to in this order, this Court reaches an irresistible conclusion that the power of the Court under Section 311, Cr.P.C. exercisable by it is an absolute one as far as this case is concerned, in order to bring out the truth of the matter. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case suffers from dismissal. 16. In fine, the above Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.