ORDER : This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure-1 Common Order, dated 18.3.2022 in Crl.M.P.Nos.58/2022, 59/2022 and 60/2022 in S.C.No.24/2019 on the files of the Special Court for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the PoCSO Act' hereinafter), Changanassery. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, Crl.M.P.Nos.58/2022, 59/2022 and 60/2022 in S.C.No.24/2019, were filed by the prosecution before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under the PoCSO Act, Changanassery, to re-open the evidence to examine the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and it's member, as witnesses to admit a letter, alleged to be given by CWC, directing the Investigating Officer for registration of the present crime. Though the applications were opposed by the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Special Judge, after relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowed all three petitions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the contents of the petitions, nothing stated to justify re-opening of evidence, summoning of additional witnesses and for production of additional documents. Therefore, the order, without considering the reasons for re-opening evidence, summoning additional witnesses and producing document, would not sustain in the eye of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced copies of the petitions, which do not contain even remote materials to justify grant of the reliefs sought for. 4. When the learned Public Prosecutor was asked to peruse contents of the petitions, he also conceded that those are the petitions filed, which led to passing of the order impugned herein. 5. It is not in dispute that, when petitions to re-open the evidence by resorting to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed, the same should contain reasons to do the said exercise by the court on the finding that the said procedure is necessary for just decision of the case. Going by the petitions filed for re-opening the evidence, the same did not disclose any reasons, apart from a prayer for re-opening and production of documents. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in allowing these petitions filed without any specific reasons. For the said reason, the common order impugned herein, is liable to be set aside. 6. Going by the petitions filed for re-opening the evidence, the same did not disclose any reasons, apart from a prayer for re-opening and production of documents. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in allowing these petitions filed without any specific reasons. For the said reason, the common order impugned herein, is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and the common order impugned herein stands set aside. However, it is made clear that, if the prosecution finds it necessary to adduce additional evidence by reopening the evidence, as sought for, the prosecution is at liberty to file proper petitions with necessary averments necessitating such a course of action and if so, the Special Court is directed to consider the same, in accordance with law, after hearing both sides along with the objection, if any, raised by the accused and pass appropriate orders. Registry is directed to inform this matter to the Special Court, forthwith.