Judgment Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.—The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the legality and validity of the order passed below exh.91 by Learned Special Judge Rajkot in Special Case No. 10 of 1995 dated 11.9.2007,in recalling the prosecution witness –original Complainant in a matter arising from the Prevention of Corruption Act. Brief facts of this petition are as under :— 2. The petitioner are arraigned as accused in the Special Case No. 10 of 1995 which has resulted on account of complaint filed by one Shri Jagjivan Ramjibhai Chavda for the commission offences made punishable under Sections 7,12, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The investigation culminated into the filing of charge-sheet against present petitioners and during the course of the Sessions trial, the complainant (Prosecution witness No. 2- ‘PW-2’) was examined. Examination- in- chief of PW-2 was concluded on 9.4.2007 and as the Learned Advocate for the accused was permitted time for cross examination that was over on 16.4.2007. 3. An application in this trial appears to have been moved for recalling the witness for the purpose of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Evidence Act’), being an application below exh.91 on dated 16/8/2007 on adverting the contentions of both the sides, the learned Special Judge allowed the said application by the impugned order which is under challenged before this Court in this petition moved under Section 482 of Code Criminal Procedure. 4. This Court has heard extensively, Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt appearing for petitioner and learned Assitant Public Prosecutor Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent-state. 5. It is contented vehemently by the Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt that the learned judge has gone out of way to favour the prosectuion, disregarding the fact that the impugned order can jeopardize the interest of accused – petitioners extensively. Had the said request made by the learned public prosecutor soon after examination-in-chief, the same could have been considered under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which permits cross-examination by the party in case of its own witness. However, when the defence was already put in a precarious position by cross examining the witness, this allowance will have to be viewed vis-a-vis right of the accused . However, when the defence was already put in a precarious position by cross examining the witness, this allowance will have to be viewed vis-a-vis right of the accused . He further, contended that, if the prosecution does not want to own the evidence of its own witness, there are ways to discard the same, but the method followed by the prosecution in the instant case and accepted by the learned Special Judge, is not consonance with the scheme of the provisions of Evidence Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of State of Bihar vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2432 . He argued that relying on this, Court has allowed the application of prosecution where reading was in truncated manner, impermissible under the law. He has further relied upon the judgment Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 . 6. As against that, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.M. Rawal urged this Court to avail fair opportunity to the prosecution and also stated that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defence in the event of upholding of the order of Special Judge as the defence can get further opportunity to cross-examination. Indeed, it was inadvertance on the part of public prosecutor according to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that he did not make request soon after examination-in-chief or the cross-examination of PW-2. It is only with the change of gear that his incumbent public prosecutor realized that the witness called by the prosecution had not supported its case and needed to be cross-examined by the party which called the witness as is permissible under the law. He also urged the Court that for a just decision in any given case, such powers must be allowed to be exercised and therefore, this petition requires no sustenance. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the party on facts and chronology in the case on hand, it would be apt to reproduce Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 154 of Evidence Act as well as the ratio laid down in both the cases relied upon by Learned Advocate for the petitioner. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks as under: 311. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks 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 as 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. Section 154 of Evidence Act reads as thus :— Question by party to his own witness.—(1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. (2) Nothing in this Section shall disentile the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness. In case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), Apex Court has elaborately dealt with the discretionary powers of Courts in allowing parties to cross-examine its own witnesses in following manner : “Section 137 gives only the three stages in the examination of a witness, namely examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. This is a routine sequence in the examination of a witness. This has no relevance of the question when a party calling a witness can be permitted to put to him questions under Section 154 : that is governed by the provisions of Section 154 which confers a discretionary power on the Court to permit a person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Section 154 does not in terms, or by necessary implication, confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examination-in-chief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and the discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. To confine this power to the stage of examination-in-chief is to make it ineffective in practice. It is wide in scope and the discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. To confine this power to the stage of examination-in-chief is to make it ineffective in practice. A clever witness in his examination-in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police or in the committing Court, but in the cross-examination introduces statements in a subtle way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examination-in-chief. If his design is obvious the Court can during the course of his re-examination permit the person calling him as a witness to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. It cannot also be said that if a party calling a witness is permitted to put such questions to the witness after he has been cross-examined by the adverse party , the adverse party will not have any opportunity to further cross-examine the witness on the answers elicited by putting such questions. In such an even the Court certainly, in exercise of its discretion, will permit the adverse party to cross-examine the witness on the answers elicited by such questions. The Court, therefore, can permit a person, who calls a witness, to put questions to him which might be put in the cross-examination at any stage of the examination of the witness, provided it takes care to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine him on the answers elicited which do not find place in the examination-in-chief.” 8. This judgment essentially permits the party which calls the witness to seek permission of the Court as envisaged under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, at any stage of the examination. This authority allowed discretion to the Court to permit the party calling a witness, to put such questions in the nature of cross-examination, even at the stage of re-examination and the essential condition laid is that the adverse party necessarily should be availed further opportunity to cross-examine such a witness on answers elicited by such examination and in such circumstances, no prejudice should be caused to other side. 9. In case of State of Bihar vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supra) ratio laid down in case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai’s case finds reference. In that case the witness called by the prosecution resiled from his expected stand even in chief-examination. 9. In case of State of Bihar vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supra) ratio laid down in case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai’s case finds reference. In that case the witness called by the prosecution resiled from his expected stand even in chief-examination. The apex Court therefore, held that the permission to put cross questions should have been sought by the prosecution then and there only. Request for such permission after the cross-examination was over, was refused by the trial Court and the High Court and the apex Court declined to interfere with the discretionary exercise of powers of the trial judge . The apex Court observed as follows :— “Nonetheless a discretion has been vested with the Court whether to grant the permission or not”.. It was further observed that:— “It would have been a different position if the witness stuck to his version he was expected to say by the party who called the witness, in the examination-in-chief, but he showed propensity to favour the adverse party only in cross-examination. In such case the party who called him has a legitimate right to put cross questions to the witness. But if he resiled from his expected stand even in chief-examination the permission to put cross questions should have been sought then. In the above situation, we are unable to hold that the trial judge has gone wholly wrong in declining to exercise the discretion envisaged under Section 154 of the Evidence Act in form of application. 10. Even on the ground that, there were other resolves open to the public prosecutor to disown the evidence of the witness during the final consideration that the Court opined that it was not worthwhile exercise to permit recalling of the witness. 11. What culls out from both these judgments is that it is open to the party calling the witness to seek permission to put questions as contemplated under Section 154 of Evidence Act which confers discretionary power to the Court to permit the person who call a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. 12. 12. This exercise can be permitted at any stage and is not limited either before the examination-in-chief is concluded or at any particular stage of examination of witness and discretion needs to be exercised as warranted from the facts on hands but, on realizing the conduct without further loss of time. 13. It would be apt to make a mention of the fact that decision given in case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai (Supra) is of a larger bench of 3 Judges as against that of Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supra) which is of division bench and this later judgment in case of Lalu Prasad Yadav cannot be read to limit the discretionary power given of allowing permission at any stage, including after the cross-examination when facts so warrant. 14. In light of this ratio which has emerged before this Court and of order passed by Special Judge, if facts are taken into consideration, the questions that needs to be answered is as to whether this is a proper case for interfering with the order passed below Exh. 91 allowing the application of prosecution after cross-examination was over, when in examination-in-chief as also in cross-examination witness chose not to adhere to his earlier version and whether order of learned Special Judge is so capricious and perverse which would warrant use of extra-ordinary powers by this Court. 15. The impugned order under challenge before this Court of recalling the witness for granting the permission to put him question which can be put by the adverse party is allowed, exercising the powers under the provision of Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mere absence of this mentioning of provision cannot take away the essence of this fact. Bare perusal of evidence of P.W.-2 the complainant prima-facie reveals that he has chosen not to support the case of prosecution in some way in examination-in-chief as well as in the cross-examination. The cross-examination conducted after one week of examination-in-chief brings on record new details including of not having met two out of the three accused prior to the date of raid. Thus, the witness appears to have taken further Volte face during the cross-examination which would otherwise permit request of re-examination by the prosecution. As it is done at the delayed stage of the four months, order is attacked. Thus, the witness appears to have taken further Volte face during the cross-examination which would otherwise permit request of re-examination by the prosecution. As it is done at the delayed stage of the four months, order is attacked. No time limit since is set in exercise of powers under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the same cannot be incorporated or read thereby limiting the discretionary rights of trial Court Special Court committed no error in exercising its discretion in recalling the witnesses for just decision of the case as also in permitting cross-examination of complainant who tried not to support the case in same way in chief-examination also during cross-examination. Concerned Public Prosecutor ought to have been more vigilant and prompt but if he chose not to so act, that may not preclude his incumbent to request for the same. While upholding the right of petitioner – accused to further cross-examination the witness when such a discretion is used, no prejudice can said to have occurred or is likely to have occurred to otherside, particularly, when the session trial had not made much headway in the said interregnum period. 16. Furthermore, if the submission of petitioner is accepted that the powers to cross-examine the witness by the party calling it can be allowed to be exercised only when the examination of witness is in session, the same would render powers given under Section 311 of the Code of nugatory and therefore, the said argument cannot be made acceptable. 17. Again, Public Prosecutor and defence shall have ample opportunity to argue on deposition of this witness at the time of final arguments of sessions trial and it will be open to challenge his credentials also, appreciation of which would follow much thereafter. 18. It hardly needs to be overemphasized that the petitioner has requested this Court to exercise its inherent powers and also exercise extra-ordinary powers to interfere with the discretionary order passed by learned Special Judge and, therefore, observation made by the Apex Court in case of Minu Kumari and another vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 359 would be required to be reproduced at this stage. “While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. “While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse.” Applying the said ratio, the short question therefore, this Court needs to answer is whether the order of recalling the witnesses after four months after cross-examination was over could be said to be so patently wrong as to the warrant interference by this Court and the answer is no. 19. It will not be inappropriate to mention that the present nature of case is against the alleged corruption by the police personnels assigned the task of upholding law and order and these guardians of law have allegedly demanded amount of corruption. In this trial complainant prima-facie chooses not to support in a clever way and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the matter for the reasons best known to him does not discharge his responsibility in time and it is only his incumbent who on realizing this, approaches the Court of law for the cause of just decision. 20. In this premise, when the order of the learned Special Judge is considered this Court is of the opinion that there is neither any perversity nor any abuse or miscarriage of the process leading to injustice to eitherside or warranting interference of this Court. 21. Resultantly, petition is dismissed. Ad-interim injunction granted earlier stands vacated in view of the discussions hereinabove. Rule stands modified to the above extent, with no order as to cost. Request is made by Learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for stay to continue the said order for approaching higher forum for 8 weeks. Request is granted accordingly.