Judgment : 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner's application for recalling of a prosecution witness, as contemplated under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was turned down by the trial Court. It transpired that no proper and sufficient grounds were mentioned in the application made by the petitioner for recalling of the witness. 3. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to make a fresh application for recalling the witness by giving details of the documents, which are required to be summoned and stating the relevancy and admissibility of the evidence sought to be adduced. The learned counsel submits that he only expects that such application, as is intended to be filed, should be considered by the trial Court afresh, on merits, and that, except this, he was not seeking any other relief in the present Petition. 4. The suggestion of the learned counsel is reasonable. 5. The petitioner shall be at liberty to make a fresh application recalling the witnesses mentioned in his application (Exhibit 21) giving better particulars, as to the relevancy of the evidence of these witnesses and the details of the documents, which are intended to be got produced together with relevancy of such documents. 6. In the event of such an application being made, the trial Court shall consider the same afresh, on merits and decide the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the fact that the previous application (Exhibit 21) for the same relief, has been rejected by it. 7. The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and to the aforesaid extent. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.