JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr.Revision Petition No.62/2014, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed by the revisional court. 2. The above mentioned revision petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner (for short 'the S.B.CR MISC. Petition No.19/2015 Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Regular Case No.17/2012, whereby the trial court, while allowing the application of the prosecution under section 311 CrPC, has ordered for recalling PW.4 Smt. Rashmi Jain, Excise Inspector for recording her further evidence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in allowing the application filed by the prosecution for recalling the witness, whose statement has already been recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the provisions of section 311 CrPC cannot be used for filling up lacunas of the prosecution evidence, however, the trial court without taking into consideration the above position of law, has illegally passed the impugned order and recalled the witness PW.4-Smt. Rashmi Jain for her further evidence. It has also been submitted that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration the above aspect of the matter and has illegally dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. S.B.CR Misc. Petition No.19/2015 Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 5. The trial court, while allowing the application under section 311 CrPC, has observed that the prosecution has not sought recalling of the witness for production of any new document but has only sought recalling of the witness for exhibiting the original Malkhana Register, certified copy of which, was earlier produced but the same was defective. It has also been observed by the trial court that the Malkhana Register is the original document and has precedence over the the secondary evidence, therefore, if the prosecution witness is allowed to produce the original Malkhana Register in place of the secondary evidence, the same will not prejudice the accused person in any manner as he will get an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, who has been recalled. 6. 6. After going through the impugned order passed by the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in exercising its powers while ordering for recalling of the witness, whose statement has already been S.B.CR MISC. Petition No.19/2015 Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan recorded. If the fact situation of the case demands for recalling of the witness, the trial court has every right to recall a witness, whose statement has already been recorded and the discretion exercised by the trial court cannot be interfered with lightly. The revisional court has also taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and has rightly upheld the order passed by the trial court. 7. Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******