Judgment :- P.R. Shivakumar, J. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Udhagamandalam, dated 111. 2008 made in Crl. M.P. No.195 of 2008 in Special C.C. No.2 of 2004 on the file of the above said Court. 2. The submissions made by Mr. B. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the respondent police were heard. The materials placed before this Court on either side were also perused. 3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Special C.C. No.2 of 2004, now pending on the file of the lower Court in a part-heard stage. The petitioner is facing trial for alleged offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Three witnesses have been examined so far on the side of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.3. Out of the three witnesses, P.W.1 was cross examined on behalf of the accused and the remaining two witnesses are yet to be cross examined. The examination of P.W.1fully and P.W.3 in chief examination was over prior to 29.03.2005. Nearly after three years from the date of examination of those witnesses, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.2 and P.W.3 for further examination in chief. The reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that their deposition in chief examination was incorrectly recorded by the Trial Court regarding the time of occurrence. In order to get that supposed mistake found in the deposition recorded by the Trial Court corrected, the prosecution came forward with the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.2 and P.W. 3. the learned Trial Judge after hearing both sides, rejected the objection raised by the petitioner herein/accused and, by an order dated 111. 2008, allowed the above said petition which had been taken on file by the lower Court as Crl. M.P.No. 195 of 2008. the said order is challenged in the present Criminal original Petition filed by the petitioner/accuse under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. 2008, allowed the above said petition which had been taken on file by the lower Court as Crl. M.P.No. 195 of 2008. the said order is challenged in the present Criminal original Petition filed by the petitioner/accuse under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Whenever a person’s testimony is recorded by a Court, before signing the deposition, the deponent is supposed to go through the recorded testimony and inform the Court if there is any discrepancy or erroneous recording of his testimony. If such witness is an illiterate, the Court Officer shall read and explain the same. If a witness has been summoned on behalf of a party to the proceedings, it is the duty of the counsel representing the party to go through the deposition recorded by the Court then and there itself and inform the Court if he can find any discrepancy or erroneous recording of the deposition. In this case, nothing was done either by the witness or by the Public Prosecutor concerned. The witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the public Prosecutor concerned should have gone through the deposition then and there itself and informed the Court of any discrepancy found in the recoding of the deposition. Nothing was done by the Public Prosecutor in this case. 5. Only after a period of nearly three years, as an after thought and with a view to nullify the possible advantage that ensued to the accused, the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. happened to be filed. The intention of the prosecution is not to elicit further particulars, but to strike out a particular portion of the deposition made by the witnesses in their chief examination. For that purpose, the witnesses cannot be recalled. As the witness who are sought to be recalled are yet to be cross examined, there is an opportunity for such witnesses to correct their earlier statements (if it is wrongly given) when they shall be cross examined by the counsel for the accused. If such an explanation is given, naturally there will be a contradiction between the testimony of the particular witness in chief examination and cross examination. However, the prosecution can try to explain the circumstances under which there was such a contradiction. Instead of doing so, the prosecution wants to delete the earlier deposition regarding a particular aspect and shows if there is no contradiction at all. However, the prosecution can try to explain the circumstances under which there was such a contradiction. Instead of doing so, the prosecution wants to delete the earlier deposition regarding a particular aspect and shows if there is no contradiction at all. Prosecution cannot be allowed to do it. The learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the consequences of recalling the witness for the above said purpose. The same will greatly prejudice the petitioner herein/accused in building up his defence. If the witnesses are recalled for the purpose cited in the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C, ultimate result shall be miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case in which the impugned order shall be aside. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Udhagamandalam, dated 111. 2008 made in Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2008in Special C.C.No.2 of 2004 is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.