ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Shivpuri, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under section 311 CrPC for recall of witness Shri Man Singh Rawat for examination in his defence has been turned down on the ground that such permission cannot be given to fill the lacuna. 2. Though, application has been moved to examine Shri Man Singh Rawat and Shri R.K. Pandey but learned counsel for the petitioner during course of arguments submits that he only wish to recall Shri Man Singh Rawat who has been examined as prosecution witness. 3. Petitioner's contention is that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (State), as reported in 2013 (5) SCC 741 , such permission can be given and what Court is required to see that interest of justice is not prejudiced and constitutional as well as human rights of a person making such application are not adversely affected while refusing to summon a witness at the instance of applicant making such application under section 311 of CrPC. 4. Facts of the present case are that petitioner was working as Reader to Naib Tahsildar. A trap was made, Rs. 5000/- was recovered form the petitioner and the defence of the petitioner is that complainant had given him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited as a fine and before he could provide receipt for such sum, team of Special Police Establishment seized such money and has prepared a case against petitioner. Petitioner's submission is that he was acting under the instructions of the SDO and Naib Tahsildar in collecting such fine amount and therefore none of the ingredients of the Prevention of Corruption Act are attracted in the present case. He also submits that in case of Natasha Singh (supra), which has been cited by him even after closure of defence evidence for all the accused persons and when case was fixed for final hearing, Supreme Court under the facts and circumstances of the case, directed that application under section 311 CrPC. He also submits that in case of Natasha Singh (supra), which has been cited by him even after closure of defence evidence for all the accused persons and when case was fixed for final hearing, Supreme Court under the facts and circumstances of the case, directed that application under section 311 CrPC. for permission to examine three witnesses should have been allowed by the trial Court and High Court erred in dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous case filed by the appellant. However, facts of case of present case are remarkably distinguishable from the facts of the case of Natasha Singh (supra). In the present case to whom petitioner wants to cite as defence witness, namely, Man Singh Rawat, Retired Naib Tahsildar was examined by the prosecution as PW4. Exhaustive cross examination was conducted on such witness and, therefore, case of present petitioner is different from that of Natasha Singh (supra). In case of Natasha Singh (supra), after examining themselves, accused person examined one and two witnesses respectively in defence and thereafter when after declaring their evidence to be closed, case was fixed for final hearing, trial Court rejected the application moved by the applicant accused under section 311 of CrPC on the ground that they were trying to delay the trial and lot of time already lapsed since the trial commenced. In that case, prosecution examined 52 witnesses and examination of those 52 witnesses took substantial time. Under such facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court laid down the law that if the prosecution had taken sufficiently long time to examine its witness, therefore, in the name of trial being prolonged or delayed, valuable right of an accused to examine defence witness cannot be curtailed. 5. However, in the present case, facts are different, the witness i.e. Man Singh Rawat, Retired Tahildar, to whom petitioner wants to examine as defence witness has already been examined as prosecution witness and petitioner had sufficient opportunity to cross examine him. At this stage, to fill the lacuna by examining him as a defence witness has not been permitted by the trial Court. 6. At this stage, to fill the lacuna by examining him as a defence witness has not been permitted by the trial Court. 6. In fact in Para 15 of the judgment in case of Natasha Singh (supra), Supreme Court has also observed that an application under section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. It has held that additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. 7. In present case, when facts and circumstances are examined in totality, then it appears that petitioner had an opportunity to cross examine said witness and now recalling of such witness who has already been examined by the prosecution and who was subjected to a detailed cross examination in the hands of the defence counsel, recalling will be nothing but an exercise to allow the defence to fill the lacuna. 8. In view of such facts, this Court is of the opinion that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference at this stage. 9. Petition fails and is dismissed. Sunil Kumar Jain for petitioner; Rohit Mishra Public Presecutor for respondent/State.