JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 12.9.2018 passed by the court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan. 2. A perusal of the order dated 12.9.2018 reveals that counsel for the petitioner had commenced cross-examination of the complainant and in the midst of the cross-examination, the complainant filed an application that he be permitted to exhibit statement of bank account, which reflect that amount was transferred by the complainant in favour of the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Judge committed a grave error to allow the application and the same amounts to filling lacunae of the case of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant at the first instance should have placed bank statement on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read the cross- examination. 5. It cannot be said that in the cross-examination the petitioner accused made some gain which was sought to be demolished by the complainant by placing document on record. Regarding transfer of the amount, the cross-examination had not opened up and therefore, it cannot be said that gain made in the cross-examination will stand demolished because of exhibiting the bank account statement. 6. In Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110 , the Supreme Court has held as under:- ""7. It is a common experience in criminal courts that defence counsel would raise objections whenever courts exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act by saying that the Court could not "fill the lacuna in the prosecution case". A lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage `to err is human is the recognition-of the possibility of making mistakes to which humans are proved. A corollary of any such latches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna which a court cannot fill up. 8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. A corollary of any such latches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna which a court cannot fill up. 8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an over sight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better." " 7. In view of the above observations made by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the complainant could not be permitted to correct the bona fide mistake. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that during the course of cross-examination when the application was filed by the petitioner that accused petitioner had made any substantial gain which was sought to be demolished by exhibiting bank account statement on record. 9. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra) and after going through the cross-examination extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground is made to cause interference and the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.