JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Mrs. D.B. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent waiving service. Considering the subject matter of controversy being regarding the part-heard trial before the Court of Session, with the consent of the parties, application is called out for final hearing. 4. Heard. 5. The applicants/accused in Session Trial No.93/2011 of the Court of Session at Yavatmal pray for exercising powers under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for examining the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 23.05.2013 passed allowing the application at Exh.99 made by the respondent for recalling PW3 Amit Varma and PW 10 P.S. I. Aljun Pitale. 6. Mr. Sudhir Malode, learned counsel for the applicants urged that the applicants are facing the said prosecution on the allegation of having committed the offences under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He urged that the said application was preferred by the prosecution after the evidence of 15 prosecution witnesses was adduced, the applicants were examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. and the arguments were heard. 1t is the grievance of the learned counsel that allowing such an application at such a belated stage is only for the purposes of permitting the prosecution agency to fill up the lacunae occurred in the prosecution case. It is further urged that the trial Court ignored the fact of the application at Exh.79 for similar purpose earlier made by the prosecution was rejected. 7. It is further urged that the Sessions Judge seized with the matter having allowed the application of similar nature in another case gives reasonable apprehension in the minds of the applicants that they would not receive a fair trial. The reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Om prakash Shankarlal Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 3175 and so also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed .vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 172. It is contended that the purported exercise of powers under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being not proper, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Iqbal Ahmed .vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 172. It is contended that the purported exercise of powers under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being not proper, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. D.B. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the contrary supported the order impugned and submitted that the trial Court was within its powers to exercise the powers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and to allow the recall not only of the witness sought but so also of one another. The learned A.P.P. contended that the order impugned depicts reasons for exercising of power and as such there being no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the order passed, no interference is required with the order passed and application be dismissed. 9. Thoughtful considerations were given to the submissions advanced by both the parties and the order sought to be impugned was carefully considered. 10. Before considering the merits of the matter, it will not be out of place to state that the legal position regarding the exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled by plethora of decisions of the Apex Court to the effect that exercise of such a power is warranted only when the Courts finds that the evidence sought to be brought before the Court by recall is essential for just decision of the case. 11. Now examining merits of this case, it can be said that the said prosecution has emerged out of the complaint filed by PW3 with Wadgaon Police Station regarding commission of offences under Section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. by the applicants. The order impugned reveals that though prosecution examined PW3 at the trial, during his deposition the endorsement made by PW10 investigating officer regarding the registration of the offence upon the said first information/the complaint was not properly proved. It appears that the learned APP has not made effort to prove the same, even while adducing the evidence of investigating officer PW 10 who is said to have made the said endorsement. It appears that the learned APP has not made effort to prove the same, even while adducing the evidence of investigating officer PW 10 who is said to have made the said endorsement. It appears that after the arguments were heard in the matter and the grievance was made on behalf of the applicants of existence of over-writing in the said endorsement, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling the said witness for adducing the evidence on record regarding the said endorsement. 12. After carefully considering the sequel of events occurred, it is abundantly clear that the evidence pertaining to most important facet of the prosecution case i.e. when the offence was registered upon the complaint of PW3 having not surfaced at the trial, has prompted the prosecution to make the application for recall. Needless to add that every criminal trial first information being the foundation of prosecution case, every facets related with the said report is of immense importance. The matters narrated hereinabove reveal that the evidence has not surfaced at the trial regarding the circumstances in which and point of time at which the crime was registered upon the said complaint. Apparently it appears that the applicants also have a grievance regarding the said registration i.e. the same being not as contained in the said endorsement as according to them the same contains some interpolation. All the said aspects make it abundantly clear that evidence regarding the said facet is essential for the just decision of the trial. As pointed out earlier, the same being acid test for determining the necessity of exercising powers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., it is difficult to find any fault with exercise of such powers by the trial Court, in the circumstances narrated hereinabove. 13. A bare glance at the provisions of Section 311 reveals that the powers under the said Section can be exercised "at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is settled law that sessions trial begins with the framing of charge and ends with the delivery of the judgment. Having regard to the same, merely because the power is exercised at the time or after hearing the arguments, no fault can be found with the same. 14. It is settled law that sessions trial begins with the framing of charge and ends with the delivery of the judgment. Having regard to the same, merely because the power is exercised at the time or after hearing the arguments, no fault can be found with the same. 14. Now reference to the decision in a case of Omprakash (supra) reveals that exercise of such a power was sought by the prosecution when delivery of the judgment was in progress. Hence it is difficult to accept that the decision relied can be said to be of any significant assistance to the applicants. Similarly the reference to the decision in the case of Mohd. Iqbal (supra) reveals that the issue considered therein regarding the stage and purpose at which such a power can be exercised being not akin with the facts involved in the said case, the same is also of no assistance to the applicants. Needless to add that in the said case additional evidence was sought to be produced in support of grant of sanction which was accorded. 15. In the premises aforesaid, in the instant case the trial Court having exercised the power after it came to the notice of the trial Court that the evidence regarding the relevant facet essential for just decision of the case has remained to surface at trial, no fault can be found with the order passed. 16. Lastly with regard to the grievance made regarding the apprehension entertained by the applicants of not receiving fair trial due to such an application being also allowed in another case, the said aspect cannot be said to be relevant for considering the reason for which the power is sought to be exercised. The said aspect being not co-related with the issue involved in the application i.e. legality, propriety and correctness of an order of recall passed, it will be wholly unnecessary to dilate about the same except the clarification for redressal of the said grievance that it will be open for the applicants to agitate grievance, if any, thereto by taking the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 17. Resultantly, there being no merits in the application, the same deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.