JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in S.T. No.169 of 2013, State vs. Harbail Singh and other, whereby the said court has allowed the application paper no.667([k) moved by the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist-accused and other co-accused are facing trial for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 174A, 34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.169 of 2013 before 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the trial court has recorded the statements of accused person u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. On 20.12.2018, the public prosecutor moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court to recall the prosecution witnesses, namely, Inspector J.C. Pathak, Inspector Pramod Sah, Sub Inspector Amar Sharma, Sub Inspector Akram and Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar, on the ground, that at the time of preparation of the case for hearing, it came to his notice that due to human error, arrest memo could not be proved, which is necessary to be proved. On the application so moved by the prosecution, defence sought time to file objections, however, inspite of time granted, objections were not filed. After hearing the parties and going through the papers on record, the trial court observed that it is necessary for proper adjudication of the case that the prosecution witnesses may be recalled as the accused persons have controverted their identification and parentage, and accordingly, by the impugned order dated 11.01.2019, trial court allowed the application paper no.667(kha). 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that after the statements of accused have been recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution has filed the application, which is clearly an attempt to fill up the lacuna which ought not to be allowed. According to learned counsel, recall of prosecution witnesses would cause serious prejudice to the accused persons. He would further submit that said witnesses had been examined in the year 2014 and now after a lapse of four years, present application has been moved by the prosecution wherefor no explanation has been provided by the prosecution. He would contend that the application has been moved to fill up the lacuna and to make good the case of prosecution. He would contend that the application has been moved to fill up the lacuna and to make good the case of prosecution. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel would place reliance on a few decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court:- (i) Ratan Lal vs. Prahlad Jat and Others (2017) 9 SCC 340 . Para 20, 21 and 22 has been relied upon, which read as under: “20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr., (2016) 2 SCC 402 , it was held thus:- “…Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined”. 21. The delay in filing the application is one of the important factors which has to explained in the application. In Umar Mohammad & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711 , this Court has held as under:- “Before parting, however, we may notice that a contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 1 who was examined in Court on 5-7-1994 purported to have filed an application on 1-5-1995 stating that five accused persons named therein were innocent. An application filed by him purported to be under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 13-5-1995. A revision petition was filed thereagainst and the High Court also rejected the said contention. An application filed by him purported to be under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 13-5-1995. A revision petition was filed thereagainst and the High Court also rejected the said contention. It is not a case where stricto sensu the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have been invoked. The very fact that such an application was got filed by PW 1 nine months after his deposition is itself pointer to the fact that he had been won over. It is absurd to contend that he, after a period of four years and that too after his examination-in-chief and cross-examination was complete, would file an application on his own will and volition. The said application was, therefore, rightly dismissed”. 22. Coming to the facts of the present case, PWs 4 and 5 were examined between 29.11.2010 and 11.3.2011. They were cross-examined at length during the said period. During the police investigation and in their evidence, they have supported the prosecution story. The Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that they were not under any pressure while recording their evidence. After a passage of 14 months, they have filed the application for their re-examination on the ground that the statements made by them earlier were under pressure. They have not assigned any reasons for the delay in making application. It is obvious that they had been won over. We do not find any reasons to allow such an application. The Sessions Judge, therefore, was justified in rejecting the application. In our view, High Court was not right in setting aside the said order. (ii) Natasha Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 5 SCC 741 , where the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up 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. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as ‘any Court’, ‘at any stage”, or ‘or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings’, ‘any person’ and ‘any such person’ clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case. (iii) Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496 , Paragraph 9 of the said judgment has been referred, which is as under: “9. The power to examine the accused is provided in Section 313 Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “313. (iii) Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496 , Paragraph 9 of the said judgment has been referred, which is as under: “9. The power to examine the accused is provided in Section 313 Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “313. Power to examine the accused.- (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) May at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) Shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section(1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.” (iv) Mir Mohd. Omar and others vs. State of West Bengal (1989) 4 SCC 436 , where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “15. The object of sec. 278 is two fold: firstly to ensure that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the judge considers necessary he will make it at once as required by sub-sec. (1) but if the correction is such that the judge does not consider necessary, sub-sec. (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the Judge add his remarks, if any, thereto. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the judge considers necessary he will make it at once as required by sub-sec. (1) but if the correction is such that the judge does not consider necessary, sub-sec. (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the Judge add his remarks, if any, thereto. In the present case, the learned trial judge corrected all the typographical errors which he considered necessary but refused to carry out the substantive part of his deposition. The section is not intended to permit a witness to resile from his statement in the name of correction. The learned trial judge was justified in refusing to effect the change which he thought was intended to change the earlier version. He did not make a memorandum as the correction slip was unsigned and was not properly filed. Now, since the correction slip as well as the remarks of the learned trial judge have become a part of the record, nothing more need be done as the provisions of sec. 278 are substantially complied with. 16. We equally see no justification for the High Court for giving liberty to the prosecution to file an application for re-examination of PW 34. In fact it will be seen from the operative portion of the impugned order the High Court proceeds on the assumption that PW 34 would be recalled for further examination. Here again it may be noted that the prosecution has closed the evidence. The accused have been examined under sec. 3 13 of the Code. The prosecution did not at any stage move the trial judge for recalling PW 34 for further examination. In these circumstances, the liberty reserved to the prosecution to recall PW 34 for re-examination is undoubtedly uncalled for. 4. Contrary to this, learned Deputy Advocate General would support the impugned order passed by the trial court. He would invite attention of this Court to Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and would lay emphasis on the word “at any stage” and would submit that the Court may, at any stage of trial, recall and re-examine any witness if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 5. He would invite attention of this Court to Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and would lay emphasis on the word “at any stage” and would submit that the Court may, at any stage of trial, recall and re-examine any witness if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file as well as perused the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 6. Before going any further, it would apt to reproduce Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which is as follows: “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 re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 7. A plain language of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that at any stage of trial the Court may recall or re-examine any person already examined meaning thereby that the exercise of the power to recall is not circumscribed by the stage at which such a request is made but is guided by what is essential for the just decision of the case. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. It casts a duty upon the Court to see whether recalling or re-examining any witness is essential to just decision of the case. 8. The trial court has recorded a finding that recalling the prosecution witnesses is essential for just decision of the present case. The powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised by the trial court on the application moved by the party or suo moto by the trial court, if the trial court opines that examination/re-examination/recall of a witness is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. 9. The powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are inherent and can be exercised by the courts to meet the ends of justice. 9. The powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are inherent and can be exercised by the courts to meet the ends of justice. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another (2015) 3 SCC 123 , has considered the scope of Section 540 of Cr.P.C. which is similar to Section 311 of the Code and has held that the power is in the widest terms exercisable at any stage so long as court is in seisin of the proceeding but the accused entitled to fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut the evidence brought on record against him pursuant to exercise of such power. 10. Now, the Court would deal with the case-laws referred to by the learned counsel for the revisionist. In so far as the first judgment Ratan Lal vs. Prahlad Jat and others1 is concerned, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As regards Natasha Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation2, in that case Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is the duty cast upon the trial court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. It has also been observed that the determinative factor should therefore be whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case. The ratio of the judgment is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case but it goes against the revisionist and in fact to some extent supports the case of prosecution, inasmuch as, the trial court has recorded a finding in its order that for effective and final adjudication of the case, it is necessary to recall the witnesses. Another judgment cited by learned counsel is Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496 , which is again of no help to the revisionist as the same only speaks about the provisions contained in Section 313 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the statement of the accused persons have been recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the application has been moved, which has been allowed by the trial court. An application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable at any stage, even after recording the statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. but before pronouncement of final judgment. Last judgment cited is Mir Mohd. Omar and others vs. State of West Bengal (1989) 4 SCC 436 . This Court finds that it was a case of re-examination of a witness without there being any prayer for the same by the prosecution. Here, the case is quite different. It is evident from the application that while preparing the case for hearing, it came to notice of public prosecutor that very important documents vis-à-vis arrest memo and documents have been left to be proved by the prosecution witnesses. It was in these circumstances that said application was moved by the prosecution. It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court and that no stone should be left unturned to find out the truth for proper adjudication of the case. Besides, it is also the duty of the court to ensure that a reasonable and fair opportunity is provided to the accused to rebut the evidence brought on record against him and to adduce defence evidence u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. 11. The scope of criminal revision is limited. Unlike the powers of the appellate court, in exercise of powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record. Rather, what is required to be seen is the material illegality and irregularity, if any, committed by the trial court or whether the trial court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjaysingh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke6 has observed as under: “14. …Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law of is grossly errorneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.” 12. In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and has not acted beyond its jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order. However, taking extra precaution in the matter as the application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed after the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., the trial court is directed to afford a reasonable and fair opportunity to the accused persons to rebut the evidence brought on record, after the examination/recall/re-examination of the prosecution witnesses is completed. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present criminal revision stands disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for compliance.