JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 315(1)(H) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules praying therein to set aside the order dated 22.8.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (the learned trial court for short) in Sessions Case No. 73/2015, whereby the application dated 19.8.2017 filed by the prosecution for re- examination of prosecution witness namely; Smt. Prem Devi (PW-2) has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that the accused petitioner along-with co-accused is facing trial for the offence under section 302 read with section 120B IPC in the learned trial court in Sessions Case No. 73/2015. On 19.8.2017 the case was fixed for prosecution evidence and on that date the prosecution examined its witness Smt. Prem Devi as PW-2. Statement of this witness was recorded in two sessions; one before the recess and other post the recess. This witness in her examination-in-chief has stated that today she cannot identify the accused. Thereafter, this witness was cross- examined by the defence and at the time of recess, further cross-examination was deferred for post recess, on the same day i.e. 19.8.2017. Counsel submitted that thereafter this witness was examined post recess and before the further cross-examination, a note was recorded by the learned trial court vis-a-vis that the oath was administered with the continuation of cross-examination with pre-recess session. Counsel submitted that this witness made signature on the statement given by her after reading the same. Counsel further submitted that after conclusion of the cross-examination of this witness, the learned PP moved an application to the effect that the typist recording the statement of this witness has inadvertently not recorded in examination-in-chief that ^^eqdnesa dh ?kVuk dks nks <+kbZ lky dk le; gks x;k gS ,ao esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn eSa ekufld :i ls rukoxzLr gwaA** and also mentioned in the application that this fact came in her notice after reading the same and prayed for reexamination of this witness. 3. 3. Counsel also submitted that on 21.8.2017, Smt. Prem Devi (PW-2) also filed an application along-with affidavit in relation to the inadvertence mistake qua non-recording of the statement that ^^?kVuk dks nks <+kbZ lky gks x;s gS rFkk esjs ifr dh e`R;q gksus ds ckn eSa ekufld :i ls rukoxzLr gwa blfy, vkt ugha igpku ldrhA** Counsel submitted that thereafter the petitioner filed reply to the applications filed by the learned PP inter-alia as to the tenability of the application mentioning therein that re-examination of this witness cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae left by the witness and inadvertence pleaded by the prosecution indeed has not occurred. Counsel further submitted that the learned trial court allowed the application vide order dated 22.8.2017 on erroneous assumption and application of law. Counsel submitted that the impugned order has been passed in crass and grotesque contravention of the mandate of section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel submitted that the impugned order indeed permits the prosecution to fill up the lacunae, which cannot be permitted under the law. 4. In support of aforesaid submissions counsel placed reliance on a Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pannayar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 9 SCC 152 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that one cannot supplement examination-in-chief by way of re-examination and the purpose of re-examination is only to get clarifications of some doubts created in cross-examination. 5. Per-contra Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the counsel for the complainant has submitted that the purpose of reexamination is only to get the clarifications and not for the purpose of introducing totally new facts. Thus, the learned trial court was justified in allowing re-examination of this witness. 6. Learned Counsel further submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 315(1)(H) of the Rajasthan High Rules is not maintainable because the High Court being an appellate Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for re-appreciation of the evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of K.V.S. Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation, AIR 2015 SC 998 . 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the object of provisions of Section 311 Cr. P.C. 1973 is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party. The provisions of aforesaid section are not limited only for the benefit of the accused and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused-accused. Counsel submitted that this view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Iddar vs. Aabida, AIR 2007 SC 3029 . 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the principle is well settled that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr. P.C. 1973 should be resorted to only with the objecting of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof such of such facts which lead to a just and correct decision of the case and it is being the primary duty of a Criminal Court. Counsel submitted that this view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Others vs. Fatehsingh Mohansingh Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529 . 9. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant, perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and also perused the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the parties. 10. From the case file it reveals that on 19.8.2017 the case was fixed for prosecution evidence and on that date the prosecution examined its witness Smt. Prem Devi as PW-2. Statement of this witness was recorded in two sessions; one before the recess and other post the recess. 10. From the case file it reveals that on 19.8.2017 the case was fixed for prosecution evidence and on that date the prosecution examined its witness Smt. Prem Devi as PW-2. Statement of this witness was recorded in two sessions; one before the recess and other post the recess. After conclusion of the cross-examination, on the same day i.e. on 19.8.2017 learned Public Prosecutor submitted an application to the effect that the typist recording the statement of this witness has inadvertently not recorded that ^^eqdnesa dh ?kVuk dks nks <+kbZ lky dk le; gks x;k gS ,ao esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn eSa ekufld :i ls rukoxzLr gwaA** and further stated that this fact came to the notice after reading the statement. The learned trial court allowed the application vide order dated 22.8.2017 by holding that ^^U;k;ky; dh bl LVst ij ;g fVIi.kh vko';d gS fd & ;g vo'; gS fd xokg o fo}ku vij yksd vfHk;kstd ds e/; ?kVuk dks nks <+kbZ lky gks x;s o esjs ifr dh e`R;q gksus ds ckn eSa ekufld :i ls rukoxzLr gwa blfy, vkt ugha igpku ldrh vkil esa okrkZyki jgk FkkA vij yksx vfHk;kstd us U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vfHk;qDrx.k dks xokg dks igpkuus ds fy, bafxr ugha djk;k rks ,sls esa vkt vfHk;qDrx.k dks ugha igpku ldrh bl xokg ds fn;s x;s dFkuksa dks gh U;k;ky; esa eq[; ijh{k.k ds nkSjku ys[kc) fd;k x;kA rFkkfi ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd vHkh orZeku esa Ásensoh ds c;ku iw.kZ ugha gq, gSA Áfrijh{k.k ds ckn iqu% ijh{k.k dh LVst ij mDr vuqlkj eqfYteku dks igpku ugha djus dk eq[; ijh{k.k esa xokg ds }kjk fd;k x;k ;g dFku fd og vkt ugha igpku ldrh gS dks Li"V djus gsrq iqu% ijh{k.k esa mDr dFkuksa dks Li"V djkusa dh ÁkFkZuk dh gSA** The re-examination is sought for the purpose of clarification with regard to identification of the accused. Though the application was moved soon after the examination of this witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application was filed just to fill up the lacunae of the case of the prosecution. And grant of permission for re-examination is subject to cross-examination by the defence. Though the application was moved soon after the examination of this witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application was filed just to fill up the lacunae of the case of the prosecution. And grant of permission for re-examination is subject to cross-examination by the defence. In view of the observations of the learned trial court regarding the examination process of recording of statement of PW-2 Smt. Prem Devi in view of the fact that, at the time, soon after the deposition, PW-2 Smt. Prem Devi had pointed out that ^^eqdnesa dh ?kVuk dks nks <+kbZ lky dk le; gks x;k gS ,ao esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn eSa ekufld :i ls rukoxzLr gwaA** The very purpose of permitting to re-examine PW-2 Prem Devi is aimed at accomplishment of substantial justice. 11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jodhpur while deciding S.B Criminal Misc. Petition No. 31/2017, Kishna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided on 11.4.2017 took into consideration the Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461 . In the case of Rajaram Prasad Yada (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held ad-infra:- “A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr. P.C. 1973 would show that widest of the powers have been invested with the Courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the expression any has been used as a prefix to court, inquiry, trial, other proceeding, person as a witness, person in attendance though not summoned as a witness and person already examined. By using the said expression any as a pre-fix to the various expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that all that was required to be satisfied by the Court was only in relation to such evidence that appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re-examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such reexamination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 Cr. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re-examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such reexamination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 Cr. P.C. 1973 and Section 138 Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the question of a criminal trial, the order of re-examination at the desire of any person under Section 138, will have to necessarily be in consonance with the prescription contained in Section 311 Cr. P.C. 1973 It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 Cr. P.C. 1973 and its application in a particular case can be ordered by the Court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code for the purpose of summoning any person as a witness or for examining any person in attendance, even though not summoned as witness or to recall or re-examine any person already examined. Insofar as recalling and reexamination of any person already examined, the Court must necessarily consider and ensure that such recall and re-examination of any person, appears in the view of the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose the essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.” 12. Thus, in my considered view the learned trial court has not committed any error, which is apparent on the face of record, in allowing the application filed by the learned PP for reexamination of PW-2 Smt. Prem Devi because reexamination of this witness is essential for the just decision of the case. 13. The writ petition filed by the accused petitioner is without any substance and accordingly dismissed.