JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is an accused in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2010, is aggrieved of the order dated 21.02.2018 by which report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) has been marked as exhibit-8. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that seven years after commencement of the sessions trial and, that too, after availing opportunity from the court when the prosecution did not produce any witness, the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill-up lacuna in its case. 3. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that there is a distinction in law between negligence on the part of the prosecution and attempt to fill-up lacuna. 4. The trial judge in its order dated 21.02.2018 has recorded a finding that the FSL report is an essential document for just decision in the case. Now, it cannot be disputed that in a case in which one of the offences is under the Explosive Substance Act, FSL report is an essential document. Inspite of alleged negligence on the part of the prosecution if the court has marked the FSL report in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2010, the accused-petitioner cannot object to the same. Any material document or a witness who is necessary for arriving at a just decision in the case, subject to mandatory provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be examined at any stage of the trial. 5. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.02.2018, Cr. M.P No.1029 of 2018 is dismissed.