JUDGMENT : 1. Case called out. Nobody is present on behalf of the revisionists to press this revision. 2. When the case was listed as fresh on 13.02.2024, the learned counsel for the revisionists had sought adjournment on the ground that he was out of station. On 26.02.2024 when the case was listed a request was made for taking up the case on urgent basis but even then nobody had appeared for the revisionists when the case was taken up as fresh. 3. Today, again nobody is present on behalf of the revisionists. Accordingly, the court proceeds to decide the revision with the assistance of Sri Rishikesh Verma, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State. 4. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionists have challenged the validity of the order dated 05.01.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No.348 of 2017: State Vs. Hazari and others, rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused persons for recall of prosecution witness Molhey for his further cross-examination. 5. After the conclusion of the cross-examination of witness when the case was fixed for recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons given an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that the statement of complainant Molhey has been recorded by the learned trial court but the allegations levelled in the case are of serious nature and it is necessary that the complainant be cross-examined. 6. While rejecting application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that although Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers power on the court to summon any person to be examined as a witness at any stage of the trial, the defense has already cross-examined PW-1 Molhey at length and thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In these circumstance, it would not be proper to summon PW-1 for being cross-examined. 7. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402 , it was held that: "… Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. 7. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402 , it was held that: "… Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary "for ensuring fair trial" is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including un-called for hardship to the witnesses and un-called for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined." 8. In Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340 , it was held that: - '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." 9. 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." 9. In Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203 , the Hon'ble Court emphasized that a discretionary power like Section 311, CrPC is to enable the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity regarding the evidence, whilst also ensuring no prejudice is caused to anyone. 10. In Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328 , it was held that: - "10. The first part of this section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine, or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. . 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 vide 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. "17. The aim of every court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. "17. The aim of every court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice. 11. In V. N. Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar, (2021) 3 SCC 661 , it was held that : - "14. The object underlying Section 311 CrPC 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 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 the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said "wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion". 12. In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1023, a 3 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Court was held that Section 311, CrPC should be invoked when it is essential for the just decision of the case. 13. The accused persons have filed an application for recall of PW-1 for being cross-examined again and they have already cross-examined PW-1 at length and the reason for recall of PW-1 mentioned in the application is that prior to the incident in question the complainant had an altercation with one Sanjay, who is not an accused person and the accused persons want to cross-examine PW-1 on his point, whereas neither Sanjay is an accused in the present case nor any evidence has been given by the prosecution on this point and the main object of cross-examination is to illicit truth on the point of evidence already given by the prosecution witness. The learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of PW-1 for his further cross-examination 14. The learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of PW-1 for his further cross-examination 14. The learned A.G.A. has drawn attention of this Court towards the provisions contained in Section 233 (3) Cr.P.C. which provides that "if the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice." 15. The application for recall of witness filed after closure of statement of PW-1 and after detailed cross-examination, seeking permission for further cross-examination on certain points which are not in issue and on which no evidence has been given by PW-1, as apparently filed for causing delay in conclusion of trial which would in turn defeat the ends of justice, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. 16. There appears to be no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 05.01.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Lakhimpur Kheri. The revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.