JUDGMENT & ORDER : Having heard Mr. Rajib Kr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R C Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that this criminal petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 16-9-2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in ST. No.143/2013 rejecting their application U/s 311 for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination after the accused have already been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the trial Court has acted contrary to law in rejecting the application of the petitioners for recalling PW.1, PW.11(I.O) and PW.12 (I.O) for further cross-examination. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court has ample powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C for such recall and having refused to recall such witnesses, gross miscarriage of justice has been caused to the petitioners. According to the trial Court, the petitioners submitted 8(eight) questions to be put to PW.1 and 17(seventeen) questions to PWs.11 and 12 which, if allowed, would amount to total cross-examination of those witnesses and would, therefore, allow them in this process to fill up the lacunas in their case. The trial Court held that this cannot be allowed at that belated stage when the accused persons have already been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 3. I have carefully gone through the application filled by the petitioners seeking recall of those witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Paragraph 1 of the application merely says that specific questions were not asked in the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and that the questionnaires were attached to the application, which should be treated as part of the earlier application of the petitioners. No reason for seeking recall of those witnesses at this belated stage is discernable from that application. 4. Undoubtedly, under Section 311 Cr.P.C, the trial Court or for that matter, even the appellate Court, has the power to recall any person already examined at any stage of the trial. However, this discretionary power, like any other discretionary power, shall have to be exercised only if their evidence appears to them is essential to render a just decision of the case. However, this discretionary power, like any other discretionary power, shall have to be exercised only if their evidence appears to them is essential to render a just decision of the case. No explanation is given as to in what manner their evidence is likely to render a just decision of the case. However, this provision cannot be invoked to enable the prosecution or the defence to fill up the lacunae in their cases. It is not explained by the petitioners as to why these questionnaires could not be put to those prosecution witnesses at the time of their cross-examination by their counsel. In my opinion, the application is not bona fide and is, apparently, filed to delay the speedy disposal of the trial. At this stage, it will be profitable to refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar, (2016) 8 SCC 762 , which is in the following terms: “40. In the case at hand, the prosecution had examined all the witnesses. The statements of all the accused persons, that is, 148 in number, had been recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The defence had examined 15 witnesses. The foundation for recall, as is evincible from the applications filed, does not even remotely make out a case that such recalling is necessary for just decision of the case or to arrive at the truth. The singular ground which prominently comes to surface is that the earlier counsel who was engaged by the defence had not put some questions and failed to put some questions and give certain suggestions. It has come on record that number of lawyers were engaged by the defence. The accused persons had engaged counsel of their choice. In such a situation recalling of witnesses indubitably cannot form the foundation. If it is accepted as a ground, there would be possibility of a retrial. There may be an occasion when such a ground may weigh with the court, but definitely the instant case does not arouse the judicial conscience within the established norms of Section 311 CrPC for exercise of such jurisdiction. 41. It is noticeable that the High Court has been persuaded by the submission that recalling of witnesses and their cross-examination would not take much time and that apart, the cross-examination could be restricted to certain aspects. 41. It is noticeable that the High Court has been persuaded by the submission that recalling of witnesses and their cross-examination would not take much time and that apart, the cross-examination could be restricted to certain aspects. In this regard, we are obliged to observe that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the witnesses have been sought to be recalled for further cross-examination to elicit certain facts for establishing certain discrepancies; and also to be given certain suggestions. We are disposed to think that this kind of plea in a case of this nature and at this stage could not have been allowed to be entertained. 42. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which are physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words “magnanimous approach” and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of balance.” The trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for recall of the witnesses under Section 311Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this criminal petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.