JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this application the applicants have challenged the order passed below application vide Exh.38 on 17/6/2013 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class thereby granting permission to examine further witnesses. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that this order passed on 17/6/2013 does not state any reason as to why grant of permission was necessary even though, the prosecution had earlier closed its evidence before charge. According to him, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the necessity for grant of permission to examine further witnesses and since application vide Exh.38 does not give justification or state any reason in this regard, order dated 17/6/2013 cannot be sustained in law and therefore the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 02/12/2013 confirming the said order dated 17/6/2013 can also not be sustainable in law. 6. On the face of it, the impugned order dated 17/6/2013 does not give any reason. In fact, the order admits that several opportunities have been granted to the prosecution/complainant for adducing appropriate evidence before charge and that on two occasions, permission to adduce further evidence after submission of evidence closed pursis has been granted by that Court. Even then, learned Magistrate has allowed the application only by saying that the delay caused in the matter can be compensated by directing the complainant to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-. There is no question of involvement of delay in the matter. The question is of existence of some justification, some reasons and some necessity in allowing the prosecution to examine further witnesses after at least on two occasions such permission was granted and then the evidence closure had been filed by the prosecution. 7. If one peruse application vide Exh.38, one would notice that no reasons whatsoever have been stated in the application as to why, even though a pursis had been filed vide Exh.33 for closure of evidence and even though thereafter arguments had been heard by the Court for either proceeding under Section 245 or Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the application could be allowed by the Court. It appears that this application has been moved by the prosecution/ complainant only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence that was recorded at the stage of evidence before charge and in order to fill up this lacuna, application vide Exh.38 had been moved by the prosecution. It is well settled law that further evidence can not be allowed to be led by the prosecution/complainant either under Section 244 or Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code just to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. The dominant reason for allowing of adducing of further evidence is of necessity of the same for reaching a just decision in the case. But, if the effect of allowing of the application is going to be of washing out of the defence of the accused, the application for adducing of further evidence cannot be allowed as allowing of such an application would cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused. This is what has happened in the instant case by passing of the impugned order by the learned Magistrate on 17/6/2013. 8. All these aspects of the matter have not at all been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge when he dismissed Criminal Revision Application by order passed on 02/12/2013 confirming the order dated 17/6/2013 passed by the learned Magistrate. 9. In the case of Fulchand Shankarji Shende Vs. Sandip Sukhdeo Thaokar reported in 2009 ALL M R (Cri) 3036, learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that an order allowing reexamination of witness without there being any reason is illegal and, therefore, could not be allowed. The view so taken is well settled. Judicial orders have necessarily to be reasoned orders so as to conform to the rigour of Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case also, the impugned order dated 17/6/2013 is unreasoned order and violative of the mandate of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17/6/2013 and 02/12/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. Application (Exh.38) is rejected. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17/6/2013 and 02/12/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. Application (Exh.38) is rejected. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in the matter in terms of Section 245 or Section 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the case may be by appropriately considering the evidence and material available on record, in accordance with law.