JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners-original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (the Code) seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.05.2016 passed below Exh.48 in Special Case (POSCO) No.45 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge (POSCO) City Civil Court No.2, Ahmedabad. Rule. Moxa Thakker, learned APP waives service of Rule for the respondent-State. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of present petition are as under: 2.1 An F.I.R. came to be registered by the respondent no.2 herein being the first informant before the Isanpur Police Station on 12.03.2014 being Cr.No.146/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO). Thereafter, investigation commenced and chargesheet came to be submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Special Judge against the present petitioner and Special Case (POSCO) No.45 of 2014 came to be registered. 2.2 Thereafter, the learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POSCO vide Exh.2 and the accused pleaded to be innocent and the trial commenced. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Tejas Shukla for learned advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has already examined 2 to 12 witnesses, and thereafter, tendered a pursis at Exh.43 declaring that they do not want to lead any further evidence. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted his written arguments at Exh.44. It is submitted that after the arguments were concluded and the trial was posted for final judgment, prosecution submitted an application Exh.48 under Section 311 of the Code, inter alia, contending that at the time when the incident took place, the statement of the minor girl was recorded under Section 164 of the Code, however, the evidence of the minor girl is material and crucial for the decision of the trial, and therefore, she may be called as witness. Thus, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in order to fill up the lacuna, such an application was made and the learned Civil Judge has committed grave illegality in allowing such application for calling the minor girl as a witness. Thus, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in order to fill up the lacuna, such an application was made and the learned Civil Judge has committed grave illegality in allowing such application for calling the minor girl as a witness. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr. [ (2016) 2 SCC 402 ] for the proposition of law that under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recalling of the witness can only be allowed, if there are tangible reasons to show how fairness of trial suffered without recall. 3.1 In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Ms.Moxa Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State has submitted that the application Exh.48 was made for summoning the victim since at the relevant time when the incident occurred, she was minor and 5 years of age and she was unable to give a statement, however, now, since she is fit for giving a statement, an application for summoning her as a minor witness was made. She has submitted that the medical examination also reveals that heinous offence of rape was committed on her. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (POSCO), Ahmedabad is required to be maintained since as per the provision of the Section 311 of the Code, the Court can summon the witness, if the evidence appears to be essential or is required for arriving at just decision in the case. 5. Ms.Panchal, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 original complainant, who is father of the victim, has submitted that the order passed by the Special Judge does not require interference. She has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rambhai Hirabhai Vadhiya Vs. State of Gujarat [ 2015 (2) G.L.R. 1320 ]. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective 7. The Special Judge (POSCO) City Civil Court No.2, Ahmedabad, on an application made by the State vide Exh.48 for summoning the victim for additional evidence, was pleased to pass an order in favour of the State. State of Gujarat [ 2015 (2) G.L.R. 1320 ]. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective 7. The Special Judge (POSCO) City Civil Court No.2, Ahmedabad, on an application made by the State vide Exh.48 for summoning the victim for additional evidence, was pleased to pass an order in favour of the State. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the victim was of 5 years age and she was unable to give her statement, however, due to passage of time when it is found that her statement can be recorded, the Special Judge has allowed the application at Exh.48. 7.1 Section 311 of the Code reads as under: “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or. recall and reexamine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” 7.2. This Court in the case of Rambhai Hirabhai vadhiya (Supra) has observed thus: 32. I may quote one more decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1999 Criminal Law Journal 4541, Wherein the Supreme Court made the following observations in paragraph no.9 9. We may observe that the power of the Court as envisaged in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been curtailed by this Court. Neither in the decision of the Seven Judge Bench in A. R. Antulay's case, 1992 AIR SCW 1872 : AIR 1992 SC 1701 : (1992 Cri LJ 2717) nor in Kartar Singh's case (1994 Cri LJ 3139), such power has been restricted for achieving speedy trial. In other words, even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the directions contained in the main judgment it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the powers of the Court under Section 311 of the Code. In other words, even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the directions contained in the main judgment it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the powers of the Court under Section 311 of the Code. We make it clear that if evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case it is the duty of the Court to summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person. 33. In my view the observations made by the Supreme Court referred to above, is a direct answer to the main submission of Mr. Buch, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused. 34. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Talwar (Supra) is also of no avail to the accused. In the said case during the trial proceedings of the wellknown Aarushi Talwar murder case, where the parents were being tried for the murder of their daughter, the accused parents had moved an application under Section 233 read with Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for production of the reports of concerned scientific tests (i.e. narcoanalysis test, brain mapping test, polygraph test, etc.) conducted on three persons who at one time were suspected accused in the said case and had been in police custody. It was submitted that the said reports were essential for the defence as they contained exculpatory statements favouring the present accused and it was only upon examination of the said reports by the trial Court that the accused would be able to put up their plea that the crime, in fact, might have been committed by the said three persons. On getting no relief from the trial court, the accused approached the High Court. The High Court rejected the said prayer on the ground that the said application was vexatious and intended to delay the proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the accused had preferred the present Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition observing as under: 9. After considering the rival submissions on this point, we find no merit in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that they could not have approached this Court earlier. There is no reason why the petitioners ought to have waited from 19.7.2013 to 17.9.2013 to approach this Court and allowed the trial to proceed even further. After considering the rival submissions on this point, we find no merit in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that they could not have approached this Court earlier. There is no reason why the petitioners ought to have waited from 19.7.2013 to 17.9.2013 to approach this Court and allowed the trial to proceed even further. We make this observation in the background of the observation of the High Court that even the initial applications were made at a stage where the prosecution evidence had been concluded and the defence had entered and almost concluded its evidence. In fact, the petitioners had, without raising any objection that the reports and documents allegedly proved by the witnesses have not been supplied to them or made part of the Court record, participated in the examination and crossexamination of two witnesses. We might note that criminal courts are not obliged to accede to the request made by any party to entertain and allow application for additional evidence and in fact, are bound in terms of Section 233(3) Cr.PC. to refuse such request if it appears that they are made in order to vex the proceedings or delay the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the learned Trial Judge who has been conducting the trial is likely to retire very soon. 35. Thus from the above, it could be said that the Supreme Court did not permit the accused to lead such evidence after the closing of the statement under Section 313 of the Code on the ground that the petitioners before the Court had been adopting dilatory tactics on every moment. 36. I have reached to the conclusion that the examination of the Medical Officer Dr. Javia is absolutely necessary for doing substantial justice. Whatever be its worth. Ultimately, the accused will also have a right to crossexamine the witness in his own way. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be in proper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be in proper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and not that of the accused. Ultimately, if such evidence is allowed to be brought on record the Court will definitely give an opportunity to the accused to explain the injuries which were found on his body at the time of drawing of his arrest Panchnama. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Iddar (supra), it is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before this Court.” 7.3 In the present case, the evidence of the victim is essential and vital hence, it is the bounden duty of the Court to summon and examine her to fulfill the requirement in order to arrive at a just decision. The impugned order allowing Exh.48 for summoning the victim cannot be termed as a filling up of the lacuna of the prosecution since her testimony or evidence would vitally affect the case of the prosecution. The reliance placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner upon the case of Shiv Kumar Yadav (Supra) cannot rescue the present petitioner since the same would not apply into the facts of the present case, as it pertains to the recall of the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the pretext of incompetency and inefficiency of the defence counsel. 8. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that no illegality or perversity is found in the order dated 16.05.2016 passed below Exh.48 in Special Case (POSCO) No.45 of 2014 by the Special Judge (POSCO) City Civil Court No.2, Ahmedabad. The present writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.