ORDER Banwari Lal Sharma, J. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners-accused against the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 13/2015 (State of Rajasthan v. Udaiveer Singh and Ors.) whereby learned Court below dismissed the application submitted by petitioners-accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness Ramveer Singh and recalling another witness PW-1 prosecutrix. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners-accused are facing trial for offence under Section 376, 498A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur. The trial is at prosecution evidence stage wherein after examination of prosecutrix PW-1 petitioners moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning one witness Ramveer Singh and recalling PW-1 prosecutrix which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.07.2015. Against the said order this misc. petition is preferred by the petitioners-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajeev Surana submits that Ranveer Singh is vital witness who is well aware about the facts of the case and same has not been introduced by the prosecution who is non else but elder brother of father-in-law (Tayar Sasur) of prosecutrix same should have been summoned. He further submits that important questions regarding burn injury, injuries on private parts of prosecutrix and conduct of prosecutrix were not asked by the counsel of petitioners to PW-1 prosecutrix. Since petitioners are in custody and the counsel failed to ask important questions to prosecutrix. Therefore, in interest of justice and for fair trial, it is necessary to recall PW-1 prosecutrix for cross examination but learned Court below without taking into consideration the arguments of petitioners, wrongly rejected the application of the petitioners. Therefore, this criminal misc. petition may be allowed and impugned order may be quashed and set aside and application of the petitioners may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment rendered in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 . 5. Learned PP Mr. R.R. Baisla supported the impugned order and submitted that, important questions were not asked during cross examination, is no ground for recalling the witness. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment rendered in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 . 5. Learned PP Mr. R.R. Baisla supported the impugned order and submitted that, important questions were not asked during cross examination, is no ground for recalling the witness. He submits that so far as Ranveer Singh is concerned, he is not cited by prosecution, therefore, at the stage of defence evidence, if accused want to summon him, they can submit application before the Trial Court at appropriate stage. Presently the matter is at the stage of prosecution evidence, and at this stage petitioners-accused cannot force prosecution to summon Ranveer Singh. He submitted that the criminal misc. petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 7. So far as Ranveer Singh is concerned, since it is not cited by prosecution as prosecution witness. Therefore, at the stage of prosecution witness, accused cannot force prosecution to summon witness, who is not cited as prosecution witness. If petitioners-accused wish to examine the said witness at the stage of defence evidence, they can do so. 8. As far as recalling of PW-1 prosecutrix is concerned. From the perusal of statement of prosecutrix, it reveals that her statement has already been completed. The examination in chief is recorded in two and a half pages and the cross examination is recorded in four pages. Therefore, it cannot be said that proper opportunity for cross examination was not given to the petitioners. 9. In the matter of P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P. (supra) two prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence counsel because counsel for accused has indeed intended to cross-examine them after Trap Laying Officer had been examined. In such situation Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that merely because a mistake was committed, should not result in accused suffering a penalty totally disproportionate to gravity of error committed by his lawyer. Denial of an opportunity to recall witnesses for cross-examination would amount to condemning appellant without giving him opportunity to challenge correctness of version and credibility of witnesses. 10. But in the case in hand since PW-1 prosecutrix has already been cross-examined at length, therefore, this judgment does not help the petitioners. 11. Denial of an opportunity to recall witnesses for cross-examination would amount to condemning appellant without giving him opportunity to challenge correctness of version and credibility of witnesses. 10. But in the case in hand since PW-1 prosecutrix has already been cross-examined at length, therefore, this judgment does not help the petitioners. 11. Recently in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav And Another reported in (2006) 2 SCC 402 Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 311 Cr.P.C. observed that :- "The object of provision for recall is to reserve the power with the court to prevent any injustice in the conduct of the trial at any stage. The power available with the court to prevent injustice has to be exercised only if the Court, for valid reasons, feels that injustice is caused to a party. Such a finding, with reasons, must be specifically recorded by the court before the power is exercised. It is not possible to lay down precise situations when such power can be exercised. The Legislature in its wisdom has left the power undefined. Thus, the scope of the power has to be considered from case to case. It can hardly be gainsaid that fair trial is a part of guarantee under Article 21, Constitution of India. Its content has primarily to be determined from the statutory provisions for conduct of trial, though in some matters where statutory provisions may be silent, the court may evolve a principle of law to meet a situation which has not been provided for. It is also true that principle of fair trial has to be kept in mind for interpreting the statutory provisions. It is further well settled that fairness of trial has to be seen not only from the point of view of the accused, but also from the point of view of the victim and the society. In the name of fair trial, the system cannot be held to ransom. The accused is entitled to be represented by a counsel of his choice, to be provided all relevant documents, to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. While advancement of justice remains the prime object of law, it cannot be understood to mean that recall can be allowed for the asking or reasons related to mere convenience. While advancement of justice remains the prime object of law, it cannot be understood to mean that recall can be allowed for the asking or reasons related to mere convenience. It has normally to be presumed that the counsel conducting a case is competent particularly when a counsel is appointed by choice of a litigant. Taken to its logical end, the principle that a retrial must follow on every change of a counsel, can have serious consequences on conduct of trials and the criminal justice system. The witnesses cannot be expected to face the hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, particularly in sensitive cases such as the present one. It can result in undue hardship for the victims, especially so, of heinous crimes, if they are required to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination. The interest of justice may suffer if the counsel conducting the trial is physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability. The interest of the society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise. Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant Rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity, to avoid grievance that an Advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India. In spite of the High Court not having found any fault in the conduct of the proceedings, it held that "although recalling of all the prosecution witnesses is not necessary" recall of certain witnesses was necessary for the reasons given in para 15 (a) to (xx) on the application of the accused. It was observed that the accused was in custody and if he adopted delaying tactics it is only he who would suffer. It is difficult to approve the view taken by the High Court. Undoubtedly, fair trial is the objective and it is the duty of the court to ensure such fairness. Width of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is beyond any doubt. It is difficult to approve the view taken by the High Court. Undoubtedly, fair trial is the objective and it is the duty of the court to ensure such fairness. Width of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is beyond any doubt. Not a single specific reason has been assigned by the High Court as to how in the present case recall of as many as 13 witnesses was necessary as directed in the impugned order. No fault has been found with the reasoning of the order of the trial court. The High Court rejected on merits the only two reasons pressed before it that the trial was hurried and the counsel was not competent. In the face of rejecting these grounds, without considering the hardship to the witnesses, undue delay in the trial, and without any other cogent reason, allowing recall merely on the observation that it is only the accused who will suffer by the delay as he was in custody could, in the circumstances, be hardly accepted as valid or serving the ends of justice. It is not only matter of delay but also of harassment for the witnesses to be recalled which could not be justified on the ground that the accused was in custody and that he would only suffer by prolonging of the proceedings. Certainly recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary "for ensuring fair trial" is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, we do not find any ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined." 12. Having regard to these considerations, we do not find any ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined." 12. In the case in hand as observed above, PW-1 prosecutrix has already been cross-examined at length and merely on the ground that certain questions were left by the counsel to ask to witness during cross examination cannot recalled. As already observed that in-competence of Advocate of accused who cross-examined witness is no ground for recalling the witness. Therefore, there is no merit in this misc. petition and the same is dismissed.