Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, framing charge against the petitioner/accused as also order dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application of the complainant/respondent under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been allowed. 2. On 01.07.2009. when the case came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner/accused did not press the prayer for quashing of charge, which had been framed against the petitioner, vide order dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure-P- 8). Notice in the present petition was issued only with regard to validity of the order dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur. 3. Counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the complainant/respondent had earlier been exam ined prior to the summoning and framing of charge and was cross-examined prior to charge was framed. Now, at this stage, the complainant/respondent cannot be permitted to be recalled and re-examined as a witness. He contends that through application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, an effort was being made by the complainant/respondent to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case more particularly the documents, which have been referred to, which are required to be placed on record, had got no relevance to the facts to the present ease. What is being sought to be placed on record by recalling and re-examining Dr. Ajit Pal Singh complainant/respondent, is production of Anti Natal Register, two registers relating to ultra sound, two filed containing Form-F and G, O.P.D. Slip of patient Kamaljit Kaur wife of Shri Amir Chand, Village Shahpur etc., were never reffered to earlier in the chailan and now three prosecution, witnesses have already been examined and cross- examined as well as at this stage, if the present application is allowed, the case of the petitioner would be prejudiced. The prosecution is dmitting deficiency in inquiry and now trying to fill in that deficiency, which is not permissible in law. The prosecution is dmitting deficiency in inquiry and now trying to fill in that deficiency, which is not permissible in law. The onus was on the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt as the prosecution was aware of the requirements and had accordingly proceeded to earlier produce evidence at pre-charge stage and now, at this stage, if such an application is allowed, it would amount to re- open ing of the case against the petitioner, which would be against the spirit of Section 311 Cr.P.C. He further contends that earlier the complainant/respondent had led preliminary evidence leading to summoning of the petitioner/accused. The complainant/respondent in his pre-charge evidence had produced the entire evidence and thereafter, closed its pre-charge evidence. On consideration of the same and hearing the parties, the charge had been framed against the petitioner accused. Thereafter, three witnesses stood cross-examined by the petitioner/accused and at this stage, when the complainant/respondent has to be cross-examined by the accused/petitioner, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecution, as the prosecution wants to fill in the lacuna, left out in the case of complainant/respondent. 4. Counsel for the petitioner/accused relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of JitendraNath Base v. The Stale, 1991 Criminal Law Journal, 922, to contend that when the prosecution case was closed, an application under Section 311Cr.P.C. cannot fee invoked and the Court cannot exercise such power as it would cause serious prejudice to the defence as the defence was unable to cross-examine the other witnesses with reference to the alleged statement. Moreover, this provisions should not be invoked by the Court to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mauji Ram v. State of Haryana, 1985 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 176, wherein this court has held that when the prosecution seeks re-examination of a witness to produce and prove certain documents, which documents were not earlier referred to in the statement given by the prosecution witness, who is sought to be re-examined, such an application cannot be allowed to improve the version of the prosecution or repair the lacuna. He on this basis for setting aside the order dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, and dismissal of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution. 5. He on this basis for setting aside the order dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, and dismissal of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution. 5. On the other hand, counsel for respondent- State submits that the present application under Section 3 11 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecution for the reason that due to inadvertence, the original record, which was taken from Ghai Maternity Hospital, at the time of inspection, could not be brought on record of the case. It consisted of Anti Natal Register, two registers relating to ultrasound, two filed containing From-F and G, O.P.D. Slip of patient Kamaljit Kaur wife of Shri Amir Chand. These documents are most essential for the just decision of the case, so that the truth can come out. He contends that in case mistake is committed by the prosecution, which is an inadvertent one, the failure of justice should not be permitted due to technical and bonafide mistake. The purpose and intent of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to provide the Court with the authority to exercise its discretion, so that just decision could be reached by the Court in a case. The justice should not be a casualty. The learned Trial Court having been satisfied in the given facts and circumstances of the case that re-examination of the witness and production of those documents would be essential for the just decision of the case, the said discretion should not be interfered by this Court. He on this basis supports the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 or re- examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person of his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case ". 7. 7. A perusal of the above provision shows that it is a discretion provided to the court, where any inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Code is pending, the Court has been given wide powers to recall or re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. The satisfaction is, therefore, of the Court, which has to decide the matter pending before it. The touchstone for exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is the satisfaction of the Court that the evidence of any person, which comes to its notice, is essential for the just decision of the case. It can at that stage summon any person as witness, examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined. This power, under Section 311 Cr.P.C, can be exercised by the Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The intention of the Legislature is to empower and enable the Court to come to a correct finding and for that reason, the Court would be fully justified in permitting production of evidence whether documentary or oral, where the Court feels that the same is necessary for the just decision of the case and no fetters can be put in exercise of these powers of the Court. The cause of justice is paramount and no impediment has, therefore, been intentionally put on the Court by the Legislature to exercise the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 8. This Court, while considering the amit and scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the case of Jagdish and another v. State of Haryana, Criminal Revision No: 2547 of 2009, decided on 25.09.2009, has held as follows :- "The section when read as reproduced above, clearly shows that this provision gives ample powers to the Court to recall, summon, or re- examine any person in evidence, if it appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The powers of the Court are wide enough to exercise its discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is to the satisfaction of the Court and to see that cause of justice should not suffer. The primary aim and object of this Section is to do justice between the parties. The powers of the Court are wide enough to exercise its discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is to the satisfaction of the Court and to see that cause of justice should not suffer. The primary aim and object of this Section is to do justice between the parties. If the Court comes to a conclusion that the production of such evidence, which has been sought to be produced taking recourse to Section 311 Cr.P.C, would enable the Court to come to a correct finding, it would be just and reasonable and the Court would be fully justified in permitting the evidence to be produced under this Section. This Section does not distinguish and rather allowed production of evidence whether, documentary or oral, which the Court feels is necessary for the just decision of the case and no fetters and impediments can be put in exercise of these powers, which has been conferred by the Legislature on the Trial Court. The Court cannot dilute the statutory powers conferred upon the Trial Court, when the Legislature did not intend to do so. Justice should not be the sufferer. The purpose and intent of the trial is to find out the truth and the truth alone should prevail and in its quest to find out and to reach the truth, the Trial Court has been saddled with powers to make all efforts to reach a correct conclusion, which is the truth. No doubt, in the said process, the interest of the parties has to be taken care of, but that does not mean that justice should be the casualty. The rights have been conferred under the statute both on the prosecution as well as the accused and when the statute confers certain powers upon the Court, which is primarily in the nature of doing justice and for that it is the satisfaction of the Court as to the essentiality of the evidence, sought to be produced by the parties for the just decision of the case, the same is depending upon the facts of each case." 9. Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Parsad v. Narcotic Cell, Delhi, 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal), 440, has in paras 7 and 8 held as follows :- "7. Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Parsad v. Narcotic Cell, Delhi, 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal), 440, has in paras 7 and 8 held as follows :- "7. It is a common experience in criminal courts that defence counsel would raise objections whenever courts exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act by saying that the court could not fill the lacuna in the prosecution case. 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 error is human is the recognition of the possibility of making mistake to which humans are prone. A corollary of any such laches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna which a court cannot fill up. 8. 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 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." 10. In the light of the above position in law, when the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is fully justified as it has recorded its satisfaction with regard to essentiality of the production of evidence for the just decision of the case. It would not be out of way to mention here that through the application, the complainant/ respondent is seeking his recall and it is at a stage, when the complainant/respondent is yet to be cross-examined after charge. It would not be out of way to mention here that through the application, the complainant/ respondent is seeking his recall and it is at a stage, when the complainant/respondent is yet to be cross-examined after charge. By production of the original documents, which are sought to be done by recalling and re- examining the complainant/respondent, which were inadvertently not placed on the file, would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/accused as she would have full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant/respondent. That apart the documents, which are being sought to be placed on record are original documents, which were taken from Ghai Maternity Hospital at the time of inspection by the complainant/respondent. It would not be out of way to mention here that the petitioner is facing charges under Section 4(1)(2)(3), 6 and Rule 10, Section 29 and Rule 9 (4) (6), punishable under Section 23 (1) of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994, and the original documents, which are sought to be brought on record in original are relevant, and, therefore, recalling and re- examination of the witness Dr. Ajit Pal Singh complainant/respondent would be essential for the just decision of the case. 11. The judgments, which have been relied upon by counsel for the petitioner/accused Jitender Nath Bose (supra) and Mauji Ram (supra), were cases, where the prosecution evidence and defence evidence stood closed and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused had also been recorded by the learned Trial Court, when application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed, which is not the position in the present case, as the prosecution evidence has not yet been closed and the complainant/respondent, who has sought to be recalled and re-examined as a witness, is yet to be cross-examine by the petitioner. 12. Finding no illegality in the impugned order dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-P- 11), passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, the present petition stands dismissed.