Judgment Indrani Datta, J. ( 1. ) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside the impugned order dated, 11/2/2010 passed by ASJ Gwalior in Criminal Revision NO. 32/10 filled against order of JMFC Gwalior and to set aside the order dated 7/1/2010 passed by the JMFC Gwalior in Criminal case No. 2975/09. ( 2. ) Facts in a nutshell giving rise to this petition are that charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners concerning Crime No.6/07 for offence punishable under Section 498A, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and a criminal case is pending against them in the court of JMFC Gwalior. The trial court has framed charges and complainant was examined on 19.11.07 in the trial court and she was cross-examined by petitioners counsel in that case. Then one application was moved on 31.1.08 under Section 311 for recalling complainant Jyoti for cross-examination. That application is rejected. Thereafter another application is filed by petitioners under Section 311 CrPC on the same ground that application is dismissed by trial court and revision referred against that order is dismissed on 11.2.10 giving rise to present petition. ( 3. ) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that on the date fixed for cross-examination of complainant Jyoti and she was cross-examined by junior counsel and junior counsel was unable to cross-examine her on some important material point concerning allegations levelled by her against petitioners, it is necessary to cross-examine her. The trial court and revisional court erred in disallowing the application under Section 311 CrPC because her cross-examination is necessary for fair, real and proper adjudication of the matter, Hence it is prayed that orders of both the courts below being illegal and improper are liable to be set aside. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for petitioners drew this Courts attention to a citation in Dinesh Kumar v. State of M.P.1 wherein, it is held that discretion under Section 311 CrPC to recall the witnesses would be exercised judiciously. In that case application was filed on the ground that prosecutrix and her husband could not effectively cross-examined by junior counsel and that application was allowed and witnesses were recalled. In that case application was filed on the ground that prosecutrix and her husband could not effectively cross-examined by junior counsel and that application was allowed and witnesses were recalled. Reliance is further placed on a citation in Hemant v. State of M.P.2 in which it is held that under Section 311 Cr.P.C. witnesses can be summoned at any stage before judgment is delivered and case is pending for long time is no ground to quash the order of summon the witnesses. Over and above, learned counsel relied upon on a citation in Hoffman Andreas v. Inspector of Customs, Amritsar3, it was a case under Section 20 of NDPS Act and number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution and cross-examined by defence counsel then defence counsel passed away before completing trial and new defence counsel was engaged by accused, who was unaware of scheme of defence strategy of former counsel. In such circumstances, further opportunity was given to defence counsel to put more question to already examined witnesses and the application under Section 311 CrPC was allowed. Relying upon the above canons it is prayed that permission be granted to recall complainant for cross-examination. ( 5. ) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that previously also one application under Section 311 CrPC was preferred by petitioners in the trial court on 31/1/2008 for recalling complainant Jyoti and one. Bitti Devi which was dismissed and that order has not been challenged and no revision has been preferred against that order and the order has attained finality. Hence this second application on the same ground is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and the orders of both the courts below are impeccable and do not warrant any interference by this Court. ( 7. ) So far as the citations relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, they are distinguishable and are not application in the case at hand. ( 8. ( 7. ) So far as the citations relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, they are distinguishable and are not application in the case at hand. ( 8. ) In case of Popatlal Jethabhai Shah v. State of Maharashtra4, it is held that Section 311 gives power to any Court at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under Code to 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, if it is of opinion that evidence of that witnesses is, essential to just decision of case. There is no limitation on power of Court arising from stage to which trial may have reached for examination of a witness provided Court, is bona fide of opinion that for just decision of case. Requirement of just decision of case does not limit action to something in interest of accused only. However, an application for recalling witnesses intended to bring out some contradictions in prosecution witnesses on ground that earlier advocate failed to do so, which caused prejudice to accused is not permissible under Section 311. In that case also, application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C and it was observed that seeking recalling since was lacking bona fides rejection of the application was proper. ( 9. ) In case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and Others5, it is held that power for recalling and re-examining the witness in order to fill in lacunae in the prosecution case at late stage cannot be permitted. ( 10. ) In case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat6, Apex court has highlighted ambit and scope of Section 311 CrPC. It is held that Section 311 CrPC consists of two parts i.e. (i) giving a discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the court. It is held that Section 311 CrPC consists of two parts i.e. (i) giving a discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the court. Section 311 does not confer on any party any right to examine, cross-examine and re-examine any witness, This is a power given to the court not to be merely exercised at the bidding of any one party person but the powers conferred and discretion vested are to prevent any irretrievable or immeasurable damage to the cause of society, public interest and miscarriage of justice. ( 11. ) In Nisar Khan alias Guddu and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal7 application was filed by accused to recall eye-witnesses after lapse of more than one year, after they were examined, cross-examined and discharged, therefore, it has been held that such application cannot be allowed. ( 12. ) Considering the above legal aspect and overall facts and circumstances of the case, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Prosecution evidence has been closed on 11/9/2008 and case was fixed for defence witness on 15/11/2008 and application under Section 311 CrPC was filed on 6/1/2010 after more than one year on the main ground that complainant was cross-examined by junior counsel. On perusal of the statement of complainant it is apparent that she has been cross-examined at length by petitioners counsel. Apparently, the application has been filed to fill loopholes and lacuna and recalling complainant for that purpose cannot be permitted. Hence, order of learned trial Court and revisional court is proper and legal. Learned JMFC has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners and learned revisional court has rightly dismissed the revision. There is no perversity in the orders of both the courts below. Accordingly the petition being sans merit, is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.