JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the State. 2. Vide order dated 07.02.2022, notices were issued upon opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Office note suggests that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have personally received the notice. On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 yesterday as well as today and that is why, this matter has been heard on merit in absence of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, XXIII, Ranchi, whereby, the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner for reexamination of complaint witness no. 1 and for allowing it to exhibit necessary documents for proper adjudication of the case in connection with Complaint Case No. 310/10, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, XXIII, Ranchi. 4. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.02.2017, a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred by opposite party no. 3 for recalling the complaint witness no. 1 for his cross-examination. He further submits that vide order dated 28.08.2017, the application of the accused was allowed and the complaint witness was recalled for cross-examination. On 12.01.2018, although complaint witness no. 1 appeared before the learned trial court for his cross-examination, but the Advocate was not present and, therefore, again the complaint witness no. 1 was discharged. He also submits that again on 06.02.2018, a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed at the instance of the accused for recalling the complaint witness no. 1 for his cross-examination, which was allowed for the second time on 04.06.2018 and the complaint witness was again called for his cross-examination. Vide order dated 20.06.2018, due to non-appearance of the complaint witness for cross-examination, the examination-in-chief of complaint witness was expunged by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.06.2018. He further submits that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 28.07.2018 for recalling the order dated 20.06.2018 by which the complaint witness was closed and the examination-in-chief of the complaint witness was expunged, which was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2018 and the complaint witness no. He further submits that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 28.07.2018 for recalling the order dated 20.06.2018 by which the complaint witness was closed and the examination-in-chief of the complaint witness was expunged, which was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2018 and the complaint witness no. 1 was directed to be present for cross-examination in the next date and, thereafter, the complaint witness was cross examined and he was discharged. He also submits that due to inadvertence, certain documents which are important for proper adjudication of the case, which could not be exhibited before the learned trial court either during examination-in-chief or during cross-examination of complaint witness no. 1 and, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application dated 17.11.2018 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re-examination of the complaint no. 1 and for allowing the petitioner to exhibit necessary documents for proper adjudication of the case, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 by the learned trial court on the ground that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for exhibiting documents and for filling up any lacuna made by the party. He further submits that in the criminal case for finding of the truth, the learned court was required to allow the exhibit those documents, otherwise the case of the petitioner will be prejudiced. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits that several opportunities were provided to the petitioner, however he has not filed those documents on time although he was having the possession of the same and that is why, the learned court has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. 6. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 and finds that in the earlier paragraphs of the impugned order, the learned court has recorded the petition filed on behalf of the complainant, who is the petitioner. The case is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. However, the reason of rejecting the said petition has been given by the learned court that Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only to examine the witnesses and not to get the document exhibited. On this ground, the said petition has been rejected. 7. The case is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. However, the reason of rejecting the said petition has been given by the learned court that Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only to examine the witnesses and not to get the document exhibited. On this ground, the said petition has been rejected. 7. The object underlying Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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. 8. In Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotics Cell through its Officer, (1999) 6 SCC 110 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment took note of the observation made in Mohanlal Shamji Sani vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1346 to the effect that while exercising power under Section 311 of the Code, the Court shall not use such power for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “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 oversight 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.” 9. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again considered Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2022 with M.A. No. 1144 of 2022 in SLP (Crl) No. 2239 of 2022 in Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others in paragraphs 38 to 44, which are quoted herein-below: “38. Having dealt with the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 311, we deal with the objection of the respondents that the application should not be allowed as it will lead to filling in the lacunae of the prosecutions case. Having dealt with the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 311, we deal with the objection of the respondents that the application should not be allowed as it will lead to filling in the lacunae of the prosecutions case. However, even the said reason cannot be an absolute bar to allowing an application under Section 311. 39. In the decision in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 which was more recently reiterated in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. vs. Computer Joint India Ltd. (2008) 11 SCC 108 , the Court specifically dealt with this objection and observed that the resultant filling of loopholes on account of allowing an application under Section 311 is merely a subsidiary factor and the Court‘s determination of the application should only be based on the test of the essentiality of the evidence. It noted that: 28. The court is not empowered under the provisions of the Code to compel either the prosecution or the defence to examine any particular witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, the court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw an adverse inference. The court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has to act under the second part of the section. Sometimes the examination of witnesses as directed by the court may result in what is thought to be “filling of loopholes.” That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge. (Emphasis supplied) 40. The right of the accused to a fair trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21. However, in Mina Lalita Baruwa (supra), while reiterating Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court observed that it is the duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to correct an error in interest of justice. In Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court had held that: 8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. In Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court had held that: 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 oversight 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. (Emphasis supplied) In the present case, the importance of the decoding registers was raised in the examination of PW-41. Accordingly, the decoding registers merely being additional documents required to be able to appreciate the existing evidence in form of the call details which are already on record but use codes to signify the location of accused, a crucial detail, which can be decoded only through the decoding registers, the right of the accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced. The production of the decoding 22 registers fits into the requirement of being relevant material which was not brought on record due to inadvertence. 41. Finally, we also briefly deal with the objection of the respondents regarding the stage at which the application under Section 311 was filed. The respondents have placed reliance on Swapan Kumar (supra), a two judge Bench decision of this Court, to argue that the application should not be allowed as it has been made at a belated stage. The Court in Swapan Kumar (supra) observed: 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has wide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The court has wide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law. 12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision. In the present appeal, the argument that the application was filed after the closure of the evidence of the prosecution is manifestly erroneous. As already noted above, the closure of the evidence of the prosecution took place after the application for the production of the decoding register and for summoning of the witness under Section 311 was dismissed. Though the dismissal of the application and the closure of the prosecution evidence both took place on 13 November 2021, the application by the prosecution had been filed on 15 March 2021 nearly eight months earlier. As a matter of fact, another witness for the prosecution, Rajesh Kumar Singh, was also released after examination and cross-examination on the same day as recorded in the order dated 13 November 2021 of the trial court. 42. The Court is vested with a broad and wholesome power, in terms of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. This Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (supra) while dealing with the prayers for adducing additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. at the appellate stage, along with a prayer for examination of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.PC. explained the role of the court, in the following terms: 43. The courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. explained the role of the court, in the following terms: 43. The courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on presiding officers of court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence-collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness.” (Emphasis supplied) Further, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (supra), the Court reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311 and held that: 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. 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. (Emphasis supplied) 43. The Court while reiterating the principle enunciated in Mohanlal Shamji Soni (supra) stressed upon the wide ambit of Section 311 which allows the power to be exercised at any stage and held that: 44. The power of the court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e. (i) giving a discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the court. Though the discretion given to the court is very wide, the very width requires a corresponding caution. In Mohanlal vs. Union of India this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the words such as, “any court” and “at any stage” or “any enquiry or trial or other proceedings” or “any person” and “any such person” clearly spells out that the section has expressed in the widest-possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case, “essential” to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case, “essential” to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to sub-serve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth. (Emphasis supplied) While reiterating the decisions of this Court in Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518 , Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (1999) 2 SCC 126 , Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517 and Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518 this Court held that the court may interfere even at the stage of appeal: 64. It is no doubt true that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court and the acquittal has been upheld, but if the acquittal is unmerited and based on tainted evidence, tailored investigation, unprincipled prosecutor and perfunctory trial and evidence of threatened/terrorised witnesses, it is no acquittal in the eye of the law and no sanctity or credibility can be attached and given to the so-called findings. It seems to be nothing but a travesty of truth, fraud on the legal process and the resultant decisions of courts - coram non judis and non est. There is, therefore, every justification to call for interference in these appeals. 44. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the High Court which is impugned in the appeal is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8 April 2022 in Misc. 44. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the High Court which is impugned in the appeal is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8 April 2022 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 57152 of 2021 as well as the order of the Second Additional Session Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore dated 13 November 2021 in Sessions Trial 227 of 2016 dismissing the application filed by the prosecution. The application filed by the prosecution for the production of the decoding registers and for the summoning of the witnesses of the cellular companies for that purpose is allowed. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore is directed to conclude Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2016 by 31 October 2022.” 10. In the case in hand, this question has been raised that Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not envisage to call upon the person to exhibit the document, but only speaks of examining the witnesses. In Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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. This part of excerpts of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself indicates that Section 311 Cr.P.C. includes power for examining the witnesses as well as admitting the relevant material which were not brought on record. This view is also supported by Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. which empowers the Court to give direction for production of any document or other thing which is necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, enquiry or other proceeding under the Cr.P.C. The duty of the criminal court is to allow the prosecution to correct an error in the interest of justice and to find out the truth. 11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, XXIII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 310/10, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, XXIII, Ranchi is, hereby, set aside. The learned court shall allow the petitioner to produce the document and to examine the complaint witness no. The learned court shall allow the petitioner to produce the document and to examine the complaint witness no. 1, who is the petitioner in this case, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.