JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) challenging the order dated 15.1.2013 (Annexure P-5). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that prosecution evidence was closed by order and, hence, thereafter the application moved by the prosecution for permission to lead additional evidence could not be allowed. Section 311 Cr.P.C. Reads as under:- “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 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.” 3. Thus, as per the above provision, the Trial Court has ample power to recall a witness for further examination if it is necessary for the ends of justice. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2002, Supreme Court 270’, has held as under:- “Learned counsel for the respondent accused however submitted that in this case there is no question of referring to Section 311 Cr.P.C. in view of earlier order dated 1.2.2000 passed by the High Court setting aside the order dated 20.9.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge recalling the order dated 3.9.1994 by which the prosecution evidence was declared to have been closed. This submission is without any substance. Section 311 empowers the Court to summon material witnesses though not summoned as witness and to examine or recall and re-examine if their evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Bare reading of the aforesaid section reveals that it is of very wide amplitude and if there is any negligence, latches or mistakes by not examining material witnesses, the Courts function to render just decision by examining such witnesses at any stage is not, in any way, impaired. This Court in Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell [ (1999) 6 SCC 110 ] observed. This Court in Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell [ (1999) 6 SCC 110 ] observed. “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.” 5. In the present case, prosecution has moved the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to produce on record orders dated 21.2.2012 and 31.10.2012 passed in the civil litigation. Although the evidence of the prosecution was closed after the passing of the orders in question but the fact remains that the orders passed by the Civil Court are per se admissible and, hence, the Trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction by allowing the prosecution to produce the said orders on record by way of additional evidence. The said orders would enable the Trial Court to decide the dispute between the parties in a more effective manner and reach at a just decision of the case. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------