JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 28.08.2009 (P1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the order dated 04.07.2007 (P4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which, the application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against respondent, alleging therein, that respondent along with her husband Shri Charanjit Singh availed hire purchase facility amounting to Rs. 66,600/- as she was working as Clerk from the petitioner company. Thereafter, the petitioner led evidence and in this regard Ltd. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (Retd.) - Managing Director of the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW3. During cross examination, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (retd.) - Managing Director was directed to place on record certain document. As such, the Managing Director brought the documents and placed the same on record. But the petitioner did not cross examine the said Managing Director on the said documents. Accordingly, the petitioner for the purpose of proving the said documents filed an application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code for recalling the witness namely Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (Retd.) before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. However, the JMIC, dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that if the same is allowed for re-examination of witness, namely, Iqbal Singh Chauhan, then it will re-open the whole case and will prolong the case. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 04.07.2007 dismissing the application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code, filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. But the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 28.08.2009. 3. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 4. While praying for quashing of the impugned orders with further prayer to allow the petitioner to recall the witness, namely, Lt. Col. But the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 28.08.2009. 3. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 4. While praying for quashing of the impugned orders with further prayer to allow the petitioner to recall the witness, namely, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (Retd.) to prove the said documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these documents were essentially to be proved on the record as the same will clear the clouds and prove there were two different transactions with respondent i.e Kulwinder Kaur and No Due Certificate got produced on the record by respondent pertains to second transactions i.e Sundary Advance. Further, by recalling the witnesses, namely, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent and that by recalling of the witness for the purpose of proving the said documents was very necessary as the said evidence would rather help the trial Court to reach at the just conclusion of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, vehemently opposed the same and submitted that second revision under the garb of section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable and that the application has been filed only to fill in a lacuna and further, the same cannot be allowed to move at a belated stage when the same prayer under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code was moved which had been earlier declined vide orders dated 27.01.2005 and 20.01.2006 by the trial Court. 6. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hanuman Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and others, reported as 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 823 to argue that once the witness was examined in chief and cross examined fully, such witness should not be recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the Court even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other Court or forum subsequently. 7. Heard. 8. It is not disputed that the Managing Director - Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan, in his cross examination, was directed to produce certain documents. Accordingly, he produced the said documents. However, he was not questioned or cross examined on the said documents. As a result thereof, the said documents are liable to be misread. 7. Heard. 8. It is not disputed that the Managing Director - Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan, in his cross examination, was directed to produce certain documents. Accordingly, he produced the said documents. However, he was not questioned or cross examined on the said documents. As a result thereof, the said documents are liable to be misread. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application for being recalled in order to clarify and to prove the same as also to show that the said documents pertain to the second transaction. The first and foremost requirement of Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code is to enable the Court to arrive at a proper, just and correct adjudication of the case. 9. Para 7 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hanuman Ram (supra) and relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent rather itself laid down the object underlying Section 311 of the Code, which reads as under :- "7. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquires and trials under the Code and empowers Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings,trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the Court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wide the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind. 10. In the present case, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh, Managing Director of the petitioner had produced the documents as directed but was not cross examined on the documents. 10. In the present case, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh, Managing Director of the petitioner had produced the documents as directed but was not cross examined on the documents. The said documents have not been proved. Hence, he is required to be re-examined under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code to prove the same. The same will help the Court to arrive at the truth. 11. Honble the Supreme Court in the case of U.T. of Dadra and Haveli and another v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh, reported as 2006(3) Apex Criminal 132 : 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 24 (SC) held in no uncertain terms that recalling of a witness or re-examine a witness already examined in order to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision of the case will not amount to "filling in a lacuna in prosecution case" by observing as under :- "12. A conspectus of authorities referred to above would show that the principle is well settled that the exercise of power under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of such facts which lead to a just and correct decision of the case, this being the primary duty of a criminal court. Calling a witness or re-examining a witness already examined for the purpose of finding out the truth in order to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision of the case cannot be dubbed as "filling in a lacuna in prosecution case" unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of Justice." 12. In the aforesaid judgment as well as in various other judgments on the subject, one of the requirements while allowing or not allowing the recalling of the witness is that the Court must make sure that the same does not result in miscarriage of justice. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :- "311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :- "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 its a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re- examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." 13. A perusal of the Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code, referred to above, gives vast powers to the Court to summon "any person" as a witness or recall or examine any witness if already examined "at any stage" of inquiry, trial or other proceedings. 14. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the same witness is being recalled at a belated stage after the conclusion of the evidence on 02.11.2006 and statement of the respondent under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be substantiated. 15. The last argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent was that the second revision under the garb of section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. 16. No doubt, the second revision is not maintainable. However, it is well settled proposition of law that the provisions of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be revoked in the interest of justice. In the present case, recalling of the witness in the facts of the present case, as discussed above, is to ensure that there is proper adjudication of the dispute and also keeping in view the ,provisions of Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code to arrive at the truth. Recalling of the witness is required in order to prove the documents which have been produced on the asking of the accused. Thus, a fair chance has to be given to the petitioner competent to prove the same to arrive at the truth which is the only object and guideline while exercising the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Thus, a fair chance has to be given to the petitioner competent to prove the same to arrive at the truth which is the only object and guideline while exercising the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed and order dated dated 28.08.2009 (P1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and order dated 04.07.2007 (P4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, dismissing the application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner, are hereby set aside and Lt. Col. Igbal Singh Chauhan, Managing Director be recalled for re-examination. Petition allowed.