JUDGMENT : K. SOMASHEKAR, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 10.01.2019 passed by II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Special Case (POCSO) No. 11/2018 rejecting the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination. 2. Factual matrix of the petition are as under: The complainant is the father of the victim-girl who is aged about 12 years. On 06.12.2017, at about 9.00 p.m. the complainant along with his family members were having food and after having food, his two sons left the house in order to sleep in their field and also to look after the goats. It is stated in the complaint that, on that night, when he woke up at about 3.00 a.m. his daughter/victim was not in the bed. Therefore, he went in search of the victim to the field and there also she was not found. The victim-girl had briefed about the petitioner/accused that he was eve-teasing the victim while she was on the way to her school. The complainant suspecting that the accused who was eve-teasing the victim might have abducted her filed a complaint before the respondent-Police and subsequently, crime came to be registered and thereafter, investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer and laid chargesheet against the accused for the alleged offences. 3. It is relevant to state that, on 31.03.2018, PW-1 who is the victim-girl was examined-in- chief for the prosecution and on that day, the trial Court has given an ample opportunity to the learned counsel for the accused to cross-examine PW-1. But the learned counsel did not proceed for cross-examination of the said witness. The cognizance of the offence was taken on 12.03.2018. The trial Court has noted the scope of Section 35(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act) which clearly says that the evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offences. In the impugned order, the trial Court has also noted the provisions of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act which clearly says that the victim shall not be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. In the impugned order, the trial Court has also noted the provisions of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act which clearly says that the victim shall not be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. Even though the learned counsel for the accused is aware of the scope and object of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has not yet cross-examined PW-1/victim. The Court below has further observed that if the victim does not support the prosecution, the accused will take advantage and if the victim supports, by hook or crook, the accused will take adjournment and try to win over the victim and her parents. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1/victim girl for cross-examination. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent and perused the records of the case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. The Medical Officer who examined the victim-girl has stated that there were no external injuries on her body. On 31.03.2018 PW-1/victim was subjected for examination-in-chief for the prosecution. On that day, the learned counsel for the accused was out of station and therefore, he was not able to cross-examine PW-1. The trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and dismissal of the said application by the trial Court has resulted in taking away the valuable right of the petitioner. For adjudication of the case, cross-examination of PW-1 is very essential and if the petitioner/accused is not permitted to cross-examine PW-1, it would seriously prejudice his case. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for intervention with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State has taken me through the averments made in the complaint so also charges which were levelled against the petitioner/accused wherein the petitioner has involved in the offences punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act. PW-1/victim girl was subjected for examination on 31.03.2018 and subsequently, she was subjected for further examination on 20.04.2018 and also marked M.Os.1 and 2. PW-1/victim girl was subjected for examination on 31.03.2018 and subsequently, she was subjected for further examination on 20.04.2018 and also marked M.Os.1 and 2. On that day, learned counsel for the accused sought some adjournment to cross-examine PW-1. The trial Court declined to grant adjournment and taken the cross-examination of PW-1 as nil. The trial Court considering the provisions of Sections 33(5) and 35(1) of POCSO Act has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he is seeking for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order. 7. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State are concerned, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute that PW-1/victim-girl is aged about 12 years and on filing of the complaint by her father, a case came to be registered and thereafter, proceeded for investigation and laid chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC besides Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Keeping in view the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also counter arguments made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the scope and object of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is required to be considered. Under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. the Court has discretionary power to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined. The power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised with caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. Recall of a witness already examined is not a matter of course and discretion given to Court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Reasons for exercising said power should be spelt out in the order. Delay in filing the application for recalling a witness is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 340 at paragraphs-17 to 19 has held as under: 17. Delay in filing the application for recalling a witness is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 340 at paragraphs-17 to 19 has held as under: 17. In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order. 18. In Vijay Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2011) 8 SCC 136 this Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as under (SCC p. 141, para 17) "17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of (Cr.PC) and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously." 19. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 , this Court has considered the concept underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27) "27. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously." 19. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 , this Court has considered the concept underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27) "27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code." It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind." 8. The discretionary power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very judicially and judiciously to prevent failure of justice. In the present case, PW-1/victim has not been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. Therefore, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking intervention of the impugned order passed by the Court below in rejecting the application filed by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. However, as could be seen from the impugned order, there are no sound reasons assigned for rejection of the said application filed by the accused for recalling PW-1 for cross-examination of the said witness. 9. 9. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner requires to be considered. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.01.2019 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, in Special Case (POCSO) No. 11/2018 is hereby set aside and the accused shall proceed with the case for cross-examination of PW-1 on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The amount shall be deposited before the trial Court and thereafter, the trial Court has to issue summons and secure PW-1 by fixing the date for cross-examination and on that day, learned counsel for the accused shall proceed for cross-examination without fail in accordance with law.