Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. V. D. Muley, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. K. Pathan, learned APP for Respondent-State. 2. By means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 21/08/2010 below exhibit 48 and order dated 24/08/2010 below exhibit 50 passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara in Reg. Criminal Case No. 165 of 2006. 3. It appears that the applicant was facing trial upon accusation punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the trial Magistrate had, on 31/08/2007, framed charge against the applicant and one Abdul Habib alias Bababhai Sheikh, under Section 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It appears that in the course of trial after some witnesses were examined; in the course of evidence of medical witness i.e. PW-2 – Dr. Nitin Devendra Turaskar, when he was questioned about preliminary injury report (exh. 37), he deposed about the injuries to the patient namely Giridhar Turaskar, who had received injuries on his forehead, thumb, knee joint (right), right toe, scrotum haenatoma, Dr Nitin Turaskar also disclosed in the course of the evidence that patient was directed to undergo operation because of pain on his scrotal region. According to him, his father namely Dr. Devendra Turaskar had informed police station Bhandara by issuing a letter regarding injured Giridhar Turaskar. The doctor was cross-examined regarding medical treatment received by the patient for his injuries as also the nature of injuries. 5. The learned Special A.P.P. appearing in the trial Court, chose to file an application with prayer to add the charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code in the interest of justice. Considering the evidence of the doctor regarding injury on vital organ and advice of operation, the learned trial Magistrate took into consideration the application at exh. 48, and was pleased to allow the application accordingly. Additional charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was framed on 24/08/2010. Thus, the contents of additional charge were read over and explained to the accused. 6. 48, and was pleased to allow the application accordingly. Additional charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was framed on 24/08/2010. Thus, the contents of additional charge were read over and explained to the accused. 6. The prosecution filed another application dated 24/08/2010, before the Court of 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara, for permission to issue summons to recall doctor Devendra Turaskar and the complainant (first informant) so as to prove additional charge for an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, since Dr. Devendra Turaskar had issued injury certificate after examination of the complainant in the case. 7. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the charge was originally framed under Section 324 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on additional charge was framed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code on 24/08/2010. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate ought to have refused to resummon the witnesses for the prosecution namely complainant and the doctor who were already examined. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that if medical witnesses and the complainant in the case are recalled again for their further evidence in the trial, such permission would enable the prosecution to fulfill the lacuna which could defeat the ends of justice and, valuable rights accrued in favour of the accused would be defeated. Learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance upon the ruling in the case of RajendraPrasad V/s. Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in-charge, Delhi reported in AIR 1999 SC 2292 in order to submit that lacuna in the prosecution ought not to be allowed to be filled in while exercising powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also made reference to the ruling in the case of ShridharWaman Surushe V/s. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 942in order to submit that the discretion available to the Court under Section 311 can not be allowed to be used to fill up the gaps in evidence of a party who seeks recourse to the provision as Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can not be used to fill up the gaps which were made by the party. 8. 8. As against above submissions, learned A.P.P. submitted that the additional charge was framed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code as prayed for by the prosecution in this case. Learned trial Magistrate after exercising powers under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had framed additional charge which was read over and explained to the accused. Thus, the accused was facing the additional charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was, therefore, already put on notice of the additional charge framed against him as the learned trial Magistrate had proceeded to frame additional charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code on 24/08/2010. Dr. Nitin Turaskar was examined in November 2009 while complainant was examined in September 2009. Under these circumstance, pursuant to the additional charge which came to be framed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code on 24/08/2010 by the learned trial Magistrate, prosecution thought it necessary to move an application to re-summon complainant and the doctor with a view to examine them with reference to the injury certificate issued to the complainant. 9. According to learned A.P.P. since additional charge was framed under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of medical evidence that complainant had sustained injuries on his scrotum and operation was performed on that vital organ of the complainant. It was necessary for the just decision of the case to lead necessary evidence of the complainant and the medical witness regarding the exact nature and cause of injury to the Scrotum of the complainant which he had allegedly sustained as a result of kick blow. The learned A.P.P. therefore prayed for to dismiss the application on the ground that prosecution cannot be prevented from adducing necessary evidence for proving an additional charge which was framed later on in the course of the trial. 10. I have perused the rulings cited on behalf of the applicant. The Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad’s case (cited supra) explained as to what is the meaning of lacuna in para 7 which is reproduced as below. 7. “Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. I have perused the rulings cited on behalf of the applicant. The Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad’s case (cited supra) explained as to what is the meaning of lacuna in para 7 which is reproduced as below. 7. “Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting, errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. 11. Looking to this observations made by the Apex Court, one can not overlook provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which enable the trial Court to summon any person as a witness, or to 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. The complainant and the medical witness in the facts and circumstances of the present case were required to be examined with reference to the exact nature and cause of the injury sustained by the complainant, medical advice to the injured, surgery performed and the duration of the injury or nature of medical treatment received by the patient. Such evidence in my opinion is essential for just decision of the case. Even if witnesses, complainant and medical witness are recalled and examined, the accused will have right to further cross-examine them and to raise defence objections in the trial Court. The prosecution in such case, cannot be shut out from leading essential evidence in respect of the nature and cause of the injuries or duration of medical treatment when the trial Court feels it necessary to re-summon the witness and record evidence for just decision of the case. The prosecution in such case, cannot be shut out from leading essential evidence in respect of the nature and cause of the injuries or duration of medical treatment when the trial Court feels it necessary to re-summon the witness and record evidence for just decision of the case. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court has framed additional charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and then prayer has been made to recall the complainant and medical witness who were already examined long back prior to framing of additional charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it can not be said that the prosecution was interested to fill up the lacuna or gap in the prosecution case. On the other hand proposed evidence is essential for just decision of the case. The Apex Court has clarified further, no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting, errors. The Court can always permit proper evidence to be adduced in respect of relevant material and relevant fact if such evidence was not brought by the party on record due to inadvertence or mistake. The functions of the trial Court is to search for the truth and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare as to who amongst the parties performed better. Truth shall prevail is the principle in such case to examine as to whether summoning or recalling witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case. Once the trial Court is satisfied that evidence of witnesses who are proposed to be resummoned is necessary for just decision of the case the trial Court can not be blamed. The trial Court directed witnesses to re-summon or recall with a view to record their evidence which is essential for just decision. Of course, when witnesses are recalled for their further evidence, full opportunity shall also be granted to further the defence to cross-examine them and also to lead evidence as defence may choose in support of its defence. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. The trial in a criminal Court must proceed and be dealt with continuously from it’s threshold to its conclusion. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. The trial in a criminal Court must proceed and be dealt with continuously from it’s threshold to its conclusion. The interest of justice can suffer if trials are heard in criminal court in piecemeal manner as per whims or sweet convenience of the presiding officers; Advocates and witnesses. The Presiding Officer of the criminal Court shall proceed de die de diem i.e. From day to day continuously until the trial is concluded unless there is a compelling or very pressing reason to grant adjournment in a criminal trial. Any Advocate accepting criminal brief to attend criminal trial must attend the trial from day-to-day punctually. His failure without just and reasonable cause for adjournment would amount to breach of his professional duty. Apart from this any inordinate delay may impairability of the prosecution to prove the case due to loss of important evidence i.e. By reason of death or disability of witness. Considering the object of Section 309 of Cr.P.Code speedy trial is necessary in a case wherein serious accusations are made. Art. 21 of the Constitution of India also imply that fair, reasonable and just procedure assured, creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. It is in the interest all concerned that guilt or innocence of the accused shall be decided as early as possible. It also serves interest of the society and public. 13. With these observations, I do not find fault with the impugned order, therefore, application is dismissed. Trial Court is expected to complete the trial expeditiously by avoiding unnecessary adjournments; preferably day-to-day.