Judgment :- Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. 1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside the impugned order No.139 dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 4th Court, Barrackpore, North 24 (Parganas) rejecting the petition dated 26.11.2014 filed by the present petitioner praying for recalling P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.8 and P.W.21 for further cross-examination on recall. 2. Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petition for recalling of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.8 and P.W.21 for further cross-examination was filed since due to inadvertence certain vital suggestions and denials were not put to those witnesses and those are very much essential for just decision of this case. He further submitted that instead of exercising the discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in order to ensure that justice is done, the Learned Trial Court rejected the petition which has caused not only prejudice to the accused but also has occasioned miscarriage of justice. He submitted yet further that grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence is the object of every fair trial. But the Learned Trial Court has wrongly denied such opportunity to the petitioner/accused. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside and the petitioner/accused be allowed opportunity to further cross-examine those witnesses after recalling them. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1 (P. Sanjeeva Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh) in support of his submission. 3. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Learned Advocate appearing for the State vehemently opposed such submission made by his Learned Adversary and submitted that the Court is not bound to exercise its discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at the sweet will or desire of any party to the proceeding. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. He submitted further referring to the impugned order itself which elaborately depicts the entire facts and circumstances and the conduct of the accused. He submitted yet further that those witnesses were examined long ago. Not only that, 21 witnesses were cross-examined by the previous Advocate and the New Advocate was engaged who has been conducting the case since 09.12.2013 but the petition for recall was filed on 26.11.2014. He submitted yet further that those witnesses were examined long ago. Not only that, 21 witnesses were cross-examined by the previous Advocate and the New Advocate was engaged who has been conducting the case since 09.12.2013 but the petition for recall was filed on 26.11.2014. This very conduct on the part of the accused shows some malafide. He further drew my attention to the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1202/2013 (Md.Pappu Sardar @ Pappu Sardar & Anr. V. State of West Bengal & Anr.) and submitted that this accused got bail from the Hon’ble Supreme Court by suppressing some material facts and so by that order the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to cancel his bail and directed that the trial be concluded within a period of three months and that the trial be conducted on day to day basis. He submitted further that only two witnesses were left and on receipt of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Learned Magistrate was cross-examined on 26.11.2014 and thereafter, the instant petition was filed by the accused. Therefore, the Learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition and the impugned order should not be disturbed. 4. Having regard to the rival submission of the Learned Advocates in the light of the decision placed and on perusal of the impugned order and the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I would like to say that there is no vested right of the accused to ask for recall of a witness for further cross-examination whenever he wishes to do so. The object of recall is not to fill up any lacuna by way of re-cross examination. From the impugned order it is reflected that the case has got a chequered career and the conduct of the accused is not appreciable if not depreciable. It further shows that the petition for recalling was filed on 26.11.2004 i.e. after the lapse of almost one year since after appearance of the newly engaged Advocate of the accused. It is interesting to see that there is no explanation about such delay in filing the petition. Equally the petition does not disclose what are the alleged denials or suggestions which are so vital that those must have to be put to those five witnesses. It is interesting to see that there is no explanation about such delay in filing the petition. Equally the petition does not disclose what are the alleged denials or suggestions which are so vital that those must have to be put to those five witnesses. Be that as it may, once the witnesses have been cross-examined, they could not be recalled for further cross-examination only on the ground that they had not been cross-examined effectively by the Advocate who cross-examined them on the date when they put in appearance. If such type of application is allowed and witnesses are permitted to be further cross-examined, it will open a flood gate of litigation and the Trial would never reach its finality. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, stage of the trial and the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for conclusion of trial within a fixed period I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which was passed by the Learned Trial Court after exercising his discretion judicially. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant Revisional Application and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.