ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Petitioner is an accused facing trial vide Sessions Trial No. 453/06 vide Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Saran at Chapra. 3. Husband of Smt. Sunita Devi died unnatural death on 23.07.2004. The wife lodged U.D. case on 27.07.2004. The brother of the deceased thereafter lodged an F.I.R. after 19 days alleging therein that the petitioner had abeted suicide of his brother. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under section 306 of the I.P.C. and the same was investigated and charge sheet was submitted in the year, 2006. The case was thereafter committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were framed and the case was taken up for trial. At the trial several prosecution witnesses including the wife of the deceased except the Investigating officer and the doctor were examined. The wife of the deceased namely, Sunita Devi was examined as P.W.3 on 20.8.2009 and discharged. Several years thereafter two applications were filed on behalf of the prosecution. The applications are annexed as Annexure-3 series. By the first application, the prosecution sought recall of PW 3 for her re-deposition on the certain points, i.e. availability of the suicidal note and extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before the wife (P.W.3). In the second application the prosecution prayed for exhibiting these documents in the case. The same was resisted by the petitioner. On a consideration of the matter, the learned Trial Court allowed the applications holding as under:- “Abhiyojan pach se kaha gaya ki kisi bhi pachkar ko kisi sakshi ko pesh karne se nahi roka jana chaiye. Kisi sakhis ka sakhiyak mulya kya hoga yeh nirnay ke dauran ubhay pachho ko sunne ke bad nayalaya dwara bichhar hoga. Mere bichhar se yadi koi pakshkar koi sakshya prastut karma chata hai or wo mukdme ke uchit nirnay hetu mahtawpurn ho sakta hai to usko prastut karne ki anumati di jani chaiya. Prastut sachya ka satwik mulya ka nirdharan nayalaya ko karma hai. Abhiyozan pachha ke do kagjat jisme mritak ka atma-hatya tipni (Suicidal note) or abhiyukta ke nayayik bahya sanswikriti ka kagaj hai, jo es mukdeme me arop ko sabit karne ya na sabit karne me mahtwapurna bhumika nibha sakte hai.Aisi parisththi me abhiyojan pachha ko ukt kagjato ko sabit karane or pradarsh karane ki anumati di jati hai. Abhiyozan pachha ke do kagjat jisme mritak ka atma-hatya tipni (Suicidal note) or abhiyukta ke nayayik bahya sanswikriti ka kagaj hai, jo es mukdeme me arop ko sabit karne ya na sabit karne me mahtwapurna bhumika nibha sakte hai.Aisi parisththi me abhiyojan pachha ko ukt kagjato ko sabit karane or pradarsh karane ki anumati di jati hai. Uski satyata ke sambandh me ubhay pachho ke sunane ke pashat nayayalay ke dwara nayayaochi adesh parit kiya jayega. Atah, abhiyojan pacha ka awaden dinak 30.6.2012 swikrit kiya jata hai or abhiyojan pachha ko nirdesh diya jata hai or ki yatha-sigra use sabit karane or pradarsh karane ki karwai kare,chuki yeh apradhik wad kafi purana hai.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions contained under section 311 of the Cr. P. C. is required to be exercised carefully. On the one hand the evidence which is deemed just and proper for doing complete justice between the parties should be allowed to be adduced. On the other hand care has to be that the said provision should not be utilized by the prosecution to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution. It is next submitted that invoking jurisdiction under section 311 of the Cr. P. C. documents adverse to the interest of the accused can not be allowed to be brought on record. Admittedly the suicidal note as well as the alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before the wife of the deceased, were made much prior to the filing of the charge sheet. Those documents were not produced in course of investigation and did not form part of the police investigation report. Those documents, therefore, cannot be allowed to be exhibited in the case which shall be prejudicial to the defence. In this connection, he has relied on a judgment of this Court in Bhola Shukla vs. State of Bihar (2009) 4 PLJR-176. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the said part of the order requires interference. 5. Mrs Pandey, learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned order. She, however, concedes that a Bench of this Court considering the provisions contained under section 311 of the Code and relying on a decision of the Apex Court has held that no documents which did not form part of investigation report can be allowed to be exhibited invoking jurisdiction under Section 311 of the Code. 6. She, however, concedes that a Bench of this Court considering the provisions contained under section 311 of the Code and relying on a decision of the Apex Court has held that no documents which did not form part of investigation report can be allowed to be exhibited invoking jurisdiction under Section 311 of the Code. 6. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The impugned order is in two parts. PW.3 has been directed to be re-summoned for her further examination-in-chief /cross examination. In a particular case if the Court finds that her recall is necessary for the ends of justice, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said decision. The next issue raised is about the legality of order whereby learned trial court permitted the prosecution to exhibit some documents. In case of Bhola Shukla (Supra) this Court noticing the provision contained in the Code and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nesar Ahmad @ Nasser Vs. The State of Bihar ( 2007(1) PLJR 216 ) and in somewhat identical fact situation held that such order permitting to exhibit some documents to the detriment of the prosecution would be contrary to law. This Court sets out herein below para-4 of the said case:- “4. Admittedly P.W.3 Shashidhar Prasad Sinha, had been examined as far back as on 17.2.2000 and the documents sought to be exhibited could well have been marked during his examination. The prosecution for the reasons best known to it having failed to do the necessary could not now come forward and by filing the documents at such a belated stage ask for recall of the witness to prove those documents. The documents were in the custody of the prosecutor bank and they could have presented the same before the Court when P.W.3 was being examined. That not having been done efforts of the prosecutor to bring them on record at this belated stage could plainly amount to filling up lacunae in the prosecution case. ” 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is persuaded to hold that the learned trial Court committed an error in law in permitting the prosecution to exhibit documents which were in existence from before and in the knowledge of the prosecution, but did not form part of the investigation report. 8. ” 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is persuaded to hold that the learned trial Court committed an error in law in permitting the prosecution to exhibit documents which were in existence from before and in the knowledge of the prosecution, but did not form part of the investigation report. 8. In the result, the present application is disposed of in the following manner: 9. The trial court in the light of the impugned order may recall P.W. 3 for her further examination in Chief/ Cross examination but in doing so the trial court will not permit any document to be exhibited on the records of the case. That portion part of the order is quashed. 10. The application stands disposed of.