JUDGMENT 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties finally. 2] By the present application, preferred by the applicant (original complainant) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he prayed that the impugned order, dated 21.9.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner in R.T.C.No. 159 of 2001 below Exh.91 be quashed and set aside and also prayed that the said application Exh.91 be allowed. 3] The brief facts in nut shell, which gave rise to the present application, are as follows:- The applicant, who is the first informant, lodged the complaint/first information report against the respondents/accused on 2.9.2001, which was registered under C.R. No. I212 of 2001 against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1)(3) of the Bombay Police Act. It is alleged by the complainant therein that on 2.9.2001 the accused persons brutally assaulted her and resultantly she was injured seriously and copy of the said first information report is annexed herewith at Exh.’A’. 4] On the basis of the said first information report, R.T.C. No. 159 of 2001 was registered. The prosecution examined the applicant as P.W.1 on 4.10.2010 and she was subjected to cross-examination on 14.10.2010 and copy of the said deposition is annexed herewith at Exh. ‘B’. 5] Thereafter it appears that the prosecution examined about 5 witnesses. At this juncture, on 18.4.2011, A.P.P. preferred an application Exh. 91 before the learned Trial Court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the applicant for reexamination for identification of the weapons. The respondents strongly opposed the said application by filing say at Exh.91, contending that the prosecution was trying to fill up the lacuna in evidence and was trying to create new evidence in the matter. Thereafter considering the rival submissions of the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application by order, dated 21.9.2011 passed below Exh. 91. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of rejection, the applicant has approached this court by filing the present application for the prayers as set out herein above. 6] Respondent nos. Thereafter considering the rival submissions of the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application by order, dated 21.9.2011 passed below Exh. 91. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of rejection, the applicant has approached this court by filing the present application for the prayers as set out herein above. 6] Respondent nos. 1 to 8 resisted the present application vehemently and submitted that considering the contents of the application Exh.91 and also considering the contents of the reply filed by the said respondents below Exh.91 and also considering the rival submissions advanced by the parties, learned Trial Court rightly rejected the said application on 21.9.2011 observing that the prosecution ought to have produced weapons prior to recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but prosecution failed to do so. It is also observed in the said order that the prosecution has produced the weapons at the fag end of the case, and therefore, held that it was not just and proper to recall P.W.1-Yamunabai for identification of the weapons, and consequently rejected the application rightly. 7] It is also submitted that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacuna and even the said application in question was preferred after examination of 5 witnesses, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court properly and no interference therein is called for in the present application. Accordingly, they urged that Criminal Application be dismissed. 8] Learned A.P.P. supported the present application and submitted that the court has got ample powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall and reexamine any witness already examined if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, and further submitted that identification of weapons by the applicant (first informant) is essential for the just decision of the said case, and therefore, Yamunabai is required to be recalled and reexamined in the interest of justice, and therefore, submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the application Exh.91 is required to be allowed. 9] I have perused the contents of the present application, its annexures and the application Exh. 91 preferred by the Special A.P.P. on 18.4.2011 for recalling P.W.1-Yamunabai i.e. applicant herein and the impugned order, dated 21.9.2011 passed by the learned trial court and heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 9] I have perused the contents of the present application, its annexures and the application Exh. 91 preferred by the Special A.P.P. on 18.4.2011 for recalling P.W.1-Yamunabai i.e. applicant herein and the impugned order, dated 21.9.2011 passed by the learned trial court and heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10] At the out set, the charge was framed on 24.3.2009 and the applicant is the first informant in R.T.C. No. 159 of 2001 and she was examined by the prosecution as Prosecution Witness No.1. Thereafter it appears that the prosecution has examined about 5 witnesses and subsequently produced the weapons before the learned trial court on 9.3.2011. 11] At this juncture, the prosecution preferred application Exh. 91 on 18.4.2011 and requested to recall P.W.1-Yamunabai for identification of the said weapons, which was opposed by the respondents by filing say at Exh.93. Thereafter the learned trial court passed the impugned order thereon on 21.9.2011 and rejected the said application and while passing the said order, learned trial court has observed that the case is pending since last 10 years and the trial of the accused is going on since last three years and the prosecution ought to have produced the weapons earlier, but it failed to do so and the weapons were produced at the fag end of the case, and hence, held that it was not just and proper to recall Yamunabai to identify the weapons, and consequently, rejected the said application. 12] Admittedly, the said application Exh.91 was preferred by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall and reexamine P.W.1-Yamunabai i.e. the applicant herein. 13] Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced hereunder:- “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 reexamine any person already examined, and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. ............. .............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ..............” 14] The very text and language of the said Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is self-explicit and the court is empowered to recall and reexamine any person already examined at any stage of the inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. 15] Applying the said parameters in the instant case, true it is that the prosecution has not produced the weapons in the court before recording of the evidence of the witnesses, but produced the weapons after recording the evidence of about 5 witnesses, however opportunity to the prosecution to recall and reexamine P.W.1-Yamunabai to identify the said weapons cannot be denied on the said count, and interest of justice requires that P.W.1-Yamunabai be recalled and reexamined and opportunity be given to her to identify the weapons produced before the court, may be at later stage as afore said, since it is essential for the just decision of the case. Needless to say, there are wide powers to the court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which can be invoked at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings if essential for just decision of the case, but same are to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. 16] In the present case, I am of the opinion that opportunity is required to be given to P.W.1-Yamunabai i.e. applicant herein to identify the weapons produced by the prosecution, and hence, she is required to be recalled and reexamined for the just decision of the case and in the interest of justice, as prayed for by the prosecution by application Exh.91. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dated 21.9.2011, passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the said application Exh.91 is required to be granted by allowing the present application. 17] In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and the impugned order, dated 21.9.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner, below application Exh.91 in R.T.C. No. 159 of 2011 stands quashed and set aside, and consequently, the said application Exh.91, dated 18.4.2011 is allowed and present application is disposed of accordingly. Interim relief stands vacated. 18] Rule is made absolute in the afore said terms.