JUDGMENT : Anant Kumar, J. When the case is taken up in the revised list, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rohit Kumar, for opposite party no.2 are present. None present for the opposite party no.3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 Shri Rohit Kumar and perused the record. 3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.04.2018, passed by the Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.429 of 2015 (State Vs. Shailendra Singh another), arising out of Case Crime No.183 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected by the learned trial court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is the complainant in the case Crime No.183 of 2015, Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad, under Section 302 IPC and on his complaint the case was initiated which was registered as S.T. No. 429 of 2015. During the course of trial, after conclusion of the prosecution evidence, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant with the signature of the ADGC (Criminal) that Mohd. Asad is an important witness in the case and he should be summoned to give evidence in the interest of justice. The said application was opposed by the defence on the ground that prosecution wants to fill the lacuna. The witness Mohd. Asad was not present on the spot when the incident had taken place. In this case PW 1 Mohd. Shahid and PW 2 Mohd.Nafis Ahmad were examined and both the witnesses have not stated about the presence of this witness Mohd. Asad. After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli has taken a view that since the witness was not present on the spot as per assertion of PW 1 and PW 2 and the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill the lacuna by adducing additional evidence and this witness was not mentioned in the charge-sheet, so this witness is not an important witness for just decision in this case, so the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Hence, this revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that infact the occurrence had taken place on 11.03.2015. Hence, this revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that infact the occurrence had taken place on 11.03.2015. The witness Mohd. Asad had given an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad along with an affidavit on 05.06.2015 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad vide order dated 05.06.2015 itself had sent that affidavit for proper disposal to the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer on 05.06.2015 had received the same but inspite of that the Investigating Officer did not care to record the statement of witness Mohd. Asad and veracity of the said witness so far as its worth pertaining to the case and the Investigating Officer constantly sat over the matter. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has committed manifest error in taking the view that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacuna and since the other witnesses have not named the present witness, he is not an important witness. It is also stated that the order passed by the trial court is non speaking order, as it has not mentioned as to what lacuna the prosecution is trying to fill, which cannot be permitted to be done. 7. Opposing the revision, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has stated that in this case charge sheet was already filed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the trial court has given a wrong finding that the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet on 05.06.2015, rather the correct fact is that on 05.06.2015 charge sheet was filed only against one accused Shailendra Singh and further investigation was pending against other accused and charge sheet was filed against other accused/opposite party no.3 on 05.11.2015, so the finding of the trial court that on 05.06.2015 charge sheet was filed is not correct. 8. Opposing the revision learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have stated that presence of witness Mohd. Asad is very much doubtful on the spot as other witnesses, i.e. PW 1 and PW 2 have not stated anything about the presence of this witness and the prosecution is simply trying to linger on the proceedings by producing the witness whose name does not figure in the charge sheet. 9. Asad is very much doubtful on the spot as other witnesses, i.e. PW 1 and PW 2 have not stated anything about the presence of this witness and the prosecution is simply trying to linger on the proceedings by producing the witness whose name does not figure in the charge sheet. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited a case law, (2017) 9 SCC 340 : Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat and others, wherein in paragraph 17 of the case law it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 reexamine 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 any 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." 10. In the case of Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another : (2019) 6 SCC 203 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 has held as under :- "8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined record with reference to the law applicable, we find it difficult to approve the orders impugned; and it appears just and proper that the application moved in this matter under Section 311 CrPC be allowed with direction to the trial court to ensure that the testimony of the doctor conducting first post-mortem comes on record. 9. Section 311 CrPC reads as under : "311. 9. Section 311 CrPC 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 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." 10. It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary powers like those under Section 311 CrPC are essentially intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity insofar as the evidence is concerned as also to ensure that no prejudice is caused to anyone. The principles underlying Section 311 CrPC and amplitude of the powers of the court thereunder have been explained by this Court in several decisions. In Natasha Singh v. CBI, though the application for examination of witnesses was filed by the accused but, on the principles relating to the exercise of powers under Section 311, this Court observed, inter alia, as under : (SCC pp.746 & 748-49, paras 8 & 15) "8. Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present "at any stage", of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings" under CrPC, or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, CrPC has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even sue motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even sue motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. 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. An application under Section 311 CrPC 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 CrPC 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. 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." (emphasis is original) 11. It is evident from the very language of Section 311Cr.P.C. that powers of the trial court in summoning the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are very wide and for the ends of justice the trial court "at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code" may 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 reexamine any such person if his evidence is appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 12. In the present case just after the incident the witness Mohd. Asad had given an application along with an affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad had sent the same to the Investigating Officer for undertaking further proceedings. 13. Today, learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit and in paragraph 6 of the same, it is stated that the then Investigating Officer had tried to contact the said witness but the witness Mohd. Asad did not turn up for getting his statement recorded but in this counter affidavit it is nowhere mentioned as to what efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to procure the attendance of this witness. 14. It appears to me that the Investigating Officer was required to take notice of the affidavit of the witness Mohd. Asad when it was referred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad during the course of the investigation but the Investigating Officer has not taken care of the examination of the same. The trial court while disposing of the application (74 Ka) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has not recorded its categorical finding as to whether the presence of the witness is essential for the due disposal of the trial or not. Merely giving the finding that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacuna, does not absolve the trial court from its responsibility as bestowed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 15. Merely giving the finding that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacuna, does not absolve the trial court from its responsibility as bestowed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 15. In view of the above mentioned reasons and circumstances, to my view the trial court has not properly applied its mind while deciding the application (74 Ka) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the light of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned herein above and the peculiar facts of the present case. 16. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. 17. Order dated 26.04.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in S.T. No. 429 of 2015 (State Vs. Shailendra Singh and another), on the application (74 Ka) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for disposing of the application under Section 411 Cr.P.C. afresh, in the light of the finding of this Court, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.