Judgment : This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defacto complainant in G. R. Case No.966 of 2001 arising out of East Bidhannagar P. S. Case No.26 of 2001 dated 10.4.2001 under Section 498/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar whereby the prayer of the defence for recalling of the P.W.1 to prove a document shown to the P.W.8 in course of his cross examination, was allowed. Mr. Rajib Lochan Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that neither under Section 137/138 of the Indian Evidence Act nor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Court can allow such a prayer specially when the defence tried to fill in the lacuna in their case. It is contended furthr that the trial started long back in the year 2001 and the prosecution witness No.1 was extensively cross examined for three years. The learned Court by an order dated 28.4.2009 rejected similar prayer on the ground that the defence intended to drag the proceeding by various means. This apart, the document in question which was marked ‘X’ for identification while the P.W.8 was cross examined, was produced all on a sudden and in utter surprise to the prosecution. The learned Trial Court failed to mention the reason as to why the admission of the document is required. Therefore, the order suffers from incorrectness and is liable to be set aside. Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite parties Nos.2 to 5 contends that under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when Court comes to a finding that a particular evidence is required to be admitted into evidence for the purpose of adjudication of the case, it becomes bounden duty on the part of the Court to direct the person to be examined for that purpose. Mr. Chowdhury draws attention of this Court to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that while the first part of it is discretionary, the second part of the section binds and compels the Court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained appears essential to the just decision of the case. Mr. Mr. Prabir Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party/State submits that the matter should be re-heard by the learned Court as the ground for recalling the P.W.1 has not specifically given. It is established principle of law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be exercised sparingly and may be exercised to correct errors of the jurisdiction or the like but not to upset the findings of Court which falls within the exclusive domain of the Appellate Court. But, herein, the learned Magistrate while recalling the P.W.1 has failed to assign specific reason as to why the document in question is required to be admitted in evidence by way of further cross examination of the P.W.1. The order says that the contents of the document are required for defence. This does not reflect anything or suggests that the contents of the documents are to be admitted in evidence for proper adjudication of the case. No doubt, the learned Trial Court has power to invoke the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at any stage of the trial for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case or for just decision of the case. But the discretion of the learned Magistrate provided in the first part of the section refers to a just and reasonable discretion. While the learned Magistrate exercises such discretion in affirmative, it should give specific reason for doing so. In order to establish a defence case, an accused in a trial, obviously gets an ample opportunity to adduce evidence and produce any person as witness whomsoever he likes for establishing his defence case or disproving the prosecution case. Therefore, I find force in the statement of Mr. Mitra. The order ought to have been justified one and supported by specific reasons keeping in mind that the P.W.1 was extensively cross examined for the last three years continuously and on earlier occasion, the defence tried to get two documents admitted into evidence by way of further cross examination of the P.W.1 and 2 and that prayer was rejected on the ground that the defence simply wanted to drag the proceeding. That being the fact, I direct the learned Trial Court to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order afresh. The impugned order is set aside. That being the fact, I direct the learned Trial Court to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order afresh. The impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that while reconsidering the matter and passing fresh order, the learned Trial Court should not influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. The application is, thus, disposed of.