ORDER 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.09.2021, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. 2. Narrating in brief, the facts relevant are that the petitioner is being tried for the offences under Sections 332 and 353 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of trial, one witness, namely, Bhanwarlal (PW-3) appeared in the witness-box on 20.04.2018 and his statements in chief were recorded. Whereafter, his cross-examination was done on 03.06.2019, on which date Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel cross-examined the witness. 3. After some time, petitioner's counsel (Mr. Yogesh Sharma) realized that the main questions, which ought to have been put to the witness, could not be posed and the cross-examination was done only in relation to the examination-in-chief of the said witness, and other relevant questions in relation to the documents could not be posed. 4. Realising such lapse, an application dated 26.08.2019 was moved by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code, vide which the trial Court was requested to summon Bhanwarlal (PW-3) for completion of the cross-examination. The reason indicated in the application was that petitioner's main counsel, Mr. Yogesh Sharma, was out of station. 5. Petitioner's application came to be rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 29.09.2021 inter alia observing that on 03.06.2019, Advocate Jagdish Vyas, who appeared for the petitioner, had himself agreed/requested to close the crossexamination by saying that he did not intend to ask more questions. It has also been recorded that on 03.06.2019, petitioner's counsel Mr. Yogesh Sharma himself had moved the application for exemption of presence of accused and, therefore, it cannot be believed that he was out of station. 6. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the trial Court ought to have adopted justice oriented approach in place of adopting a hyper-technical view. He emphasized that the Court ought to have allowed petitioner's application in the interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had moved the application on 26.08.2019 itself without wasting any time. The case has not progressed substantially and no prejudice would be caused, if one opportunity is granted. 8. He emphasized that the Court ought to have allowed petitioner's application in the interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had moved the application on 26.08.2019 itself without wasting any time. The case has not progressed substantially and no prejudice would be caused, if one opportunity is granted. 8. Learned counsel further argued that if the order impugned is not quashed and the application under Section 311 of the Code is not allowed, petitioner's right to defend shall be seriously prejudiced. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and other relevant material. 10. It cannot be disputed that on 03.06.2019, petitioner's counsel Mr. Yogesh Sharma himself had submitted the application for exemption and at his instructions, Bhanwarlal (PW-3) was cross-examined by his co-counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas. It is also not in dispute that after asking all relevant questions, such counsel (Mr. Jagdish Vyas) had himself stopped cross-examination, whereafter, the trial Court closed evidence of Bhanwarlal (PW-3). 11. Such being the position, this Court is of the considered view that the said witness Bhanwarlal (PW-3) cannot be recalled for filling-up the lacuna, which has been left by petitioner's counsel. In the opinion of this Court, a lacuna left cannot be allowed to be filled in under the guise of or even under the apprehension of losing a case. 12. This Court does not find any substance in the petitioner's petition. 13. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 14. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.