JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The present applicant, State has filed this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.12.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.187 of 2009 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal Godhra wherein permission is sought to recall Prosecution Witness, J.J. Chaudhary, examined at Ex.93 as per the scheme of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The respondents-accused persons in Sessions Case No.187 of 2009 are charged for the offence punishable under Sections 489(B) (C) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13 and 17 of the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967. 3. During the course of the trial an application was made on 20.12.2011 by the prosecution seeking permission to issue summons to Prosecution Witness, J.J. Chaudhary, who has recorded statement of one Rajendrabhai Gyanchand Padvani, to prove the contradictions in his evidence recorded at Ex.135. That application was opposed by the present respondents-accused and after having heard both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order below Exhs.144 and 145 rejecting the said applications. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 20.12.2011 passed below Exhs.144 and 145 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal Godhra, the State has filed present Revision. 5. Heard Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP for the State, Mr. Arsh R. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing with Mr.R.Z.Shaikh, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7, Ms. Mariya Dalal, learned advocate for the respondent No.5 and Mr. Y.M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent No.6. 6. Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP has read the provisions of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and contended that it is the right of the prosecution to contradict the witnesses from the police statement. 7. He has submitted that during the course of recording the evidence of the defence witness Rajendra Gyanchand, there were some contradiction in his evidence and therefore, it was required to summon the Investigating Officer to prove the said contradictions so that at the time of final arguments, reliability of the defence witness could be examined properly. 8. It is further submitted that during the cross-examination of the prosecution witness-Investigating Officer certain facts were not challenged such as interpretation of Rajendrabhai Gyanchand even though his statement was fabricated and produced along with the charge-sheet. 8. It is further submitted that during the cross-examination of the prosecution witness-Investigating Officer certain facts were not challenged such as interpretation of Rajendrabhai Gyanchand even though his statement was fabricated and produced along with the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the said defence witness has also not stated in his examination in chief that the said Investigating Officer had interrogated him and had fabricated his statement dated 3.9.2009 which was produced along with the charge-sheet. It is, therefore, submitted that although there was existence of certain facts, during the cross-examination the said defence witness has stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have granted permission to recall the prosecution witness as prayed for. 9. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order impugned without examining the factual position, as the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the above defence witness in whose evidence there were contradictions and with a view to prove the said contradictions the Investigating Officer was required to be recalled. 10. It is submitted that it is for the prosecution to prove the case against the accused and therefore, the permission to recall the Investigating Officer ought to have been granted by the learned Judge. 11. Finally, Mr. Jani submitted that the order impugned herein passed by the learned Judge below is not proper and is contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Mr.Shaikh has read provisions of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and contended that present applicant has no right to recall the Investigating Officer to prove the contradiction. He has contended that the defence witness is not examined by the prosecution. He has submitted that the present defence witness is shown in the charge-sheet as prosecution witness, but when the said witness is not examined there is no question of contradiction. 13. In support of his submissions he has drawn attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. He has submitted that the present defence witness is shown in the charge-sheet as prosecution witness, but when the said witness is not examined there is no question of contradiction. 13. In support of his submissions he has drawn attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama and Anr., reported in AIR 1975 SC 1324 , wherein in para 4 the Apex Court has held that, “Under Section 162 Cr.P.C. Only witnesses on behalf of the prosecution could be contradicted by reference to their statements made to the police, and not court witnesses or defence witnesses. Even so in the circumstances of this case his evidence, which is more or less similar to the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7 cannot be accepted.” 14. Heard learned advocates for both the parties at length and in great detail. I have gone through the papers produced before me and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. I have also considered the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned advocates. 15. In this case, the application to recall the Investigating Officer was given belatedly at the stage of final argument i.e. after the evidence of both the parties was over and after the purshis for closure of evidence of both the parties was filed. Therefore, it was not proper for the prosecution to give application for recall of the Investigating Officer. It is also required to be noted that such application filed under Section 311 also did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also required to be noted that in the decision of the Madras High Court in the case reported in 2000 Criminal Law Journal 624, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if any lacuna is left out in the prosecution case, the application given under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the prosecution to examine the witness at a belated stage with a view to fill up the lacuna cannot be granted. It appears that the application for recall of the Investigating Officer was given with a view to protract the trial. It is also required to be noted as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. It appears that the application for recall of the Investigating Officer was given with a view to protract the trial. It is also required to be noted as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader (Supra) that under Section 162 of the Code, only witnesses on behalf of the prosecution can be contradicted by reference to their statements made to the police and not the Court witnesses or defence witnesses. 16. I, therefore, hold that the learned Judge has rightly rejected the application of the prosecution seeking to recall the Investigating Officer. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Application deserves to be dismissed. Hence it is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Revision dismissed.