JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—Heard Shri P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Shashi Dhar Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this application the applicant has challenged an order dated 4-12-2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST. (Act), Kanpur Dehat in ST No. 6 of 2006 whereby the learned trial Judge has permitted the re-examination of P.W. 8, Mijaji Lal. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has firstly contended that the application for re-examination is too telegraphic and the Court has too readily permitted the same. Neither the prosecution nor the accused should be permitted to fill up lacunae. 4. No doubt, it would have been better if the application for re-examination of the witnesses had been more detailed. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Judge has examined the issue exhaustively after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P., AIR 1999 SC 3544 , and observed that if in the cross-examination new matter is introduced, the trial Court may permit re-examination and has specifically pointed out that Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers such a power. It has been further clarified that under such provisions, re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination and if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon the matter. This, in my view, is the correct proposition of law on the point. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant, however, drew my attention to the statement of P.W. 8 Mijaji Lal. I find that in his cross-examination Mijaji Lal has virtually suggested that he has given evidence at the instance of the police, who had apprehended him and that he had been confined to the police station on the night before his examination and threats were even extended to him. He further stated that on the night of incident, he was sleeping in his house and only learnt about the incident the next morning and he had gone to the spot. He denied having a gas lamp at his place. 6. He further stated that on the night of incident, he was sleeping in his house and only learnt about the incident the next morning and he had gone to the spot. He denied having a gas lamp at his place. 6. Therefore, a perusal of the said evidence shows that new matter had been elicited in the cross-examination and certainly the prosecution had a right to seek explanation of such matter, which had been elicited in the cross-examination. Allowing re-examination of such a witness does not amount to filling up lacunae. 7. It was further argued that the casual manner in which the application for re-examination had been moved is apparent from the fact that application was moved under Section 321 of the Code, which relates to withdrawal of prosecutions. 8. It is not very important if a wrong section is quoted and the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer because of ineptness of the public prosecutor. It is not very material if Section 138 of the Evidence Act or Section 311, Cr.P.C. are not mentioned in the application for re-examination of the witness. 9. I think that the learned Special Judge has rightly distinguished the judgment of learned Single Judge in C.B.I. v. Arun Kumar Kaushik, 2006 (55) ACC 629, which had suggested that it was important to declare a witness hostile before cross-examining him by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Rammi alias Rameshwar (supra), wherein it has been clearly mentioned by the Apex Court that there is a very liberal power of re-examination of the witnesses by Section 138 of the Evidence Act and it is erroneous to this that only ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. It is stated that if the party which has called the witness feels that explanation is required in any matter referred to in cross-examination, he is at liberty to put any question in re-examination that is put in examination and the re-examination is not to be confined to the facts to which the witness certified in the examination-in-chief. 10. The other case cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant viz. a learned Single Judge decision in Pradeep Kumar Chaurasiya v. State of U.P., 2007 (58) ACC 894, has also been cited by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 11. 10. The other case cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant viz. a learned Single Judge decision in Pradeep Kumar Chaurasiya v. State of U.P., 2007 (58) ACC 894, has also been cited by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 11. I think the learned Additional Government Advocate was right in submitting that the said decision, instead of supporting the applicant, is really in favour of the prosecution and the impugned order passed by the Special Judge. The said decision speaks of the wide amplitude of the powers of summoning the witness under Section 311, Cr.P.C. and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohan Lal Sham Ji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 (Suppl) ACC 83, it has been observed that under the first part of Section 311, Cr.P.C. the Court has an option to recall or re-examine any person and under the second part where the evidence of the witnesses may be necessitated for a just decision of the case, it may be imperative for summoning the witnesses. 12. In the present case as indicated above, certain new facts relating to the allegation of P.W. 8, Mijaji Lal that police pressure had been put on him to give evidence, has been elicited in the cross-examination and it appeared to be essential to get the same clarified in exercise of powers under Section 138 of the Evidence Act. 13. I, therefore, find no illegality in the order dated 4-12-2007 passed by the Special Judge, Kanpur Dehat directing re-examination of P.W. 8, Mijaji Lal. The application is rejected being devoid of merit. ————