ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.1 and Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of respondent. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), to quash the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No.36 of 2025 in C.C. No.1 of 2012. 3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C. No.1 of 2012. He has filed an Application vide Crl.M.P. No.36 of 2025 [Crl.M.P. No.986 of 2025 (Reg.No.)], under Section - 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW.160 on the following grounds: i) PW.160, a retired Superintendent Survey Officer, Corporate Survey Department, Singareni Colleries, Kothagudem, gave evidence on behalf of prosecution. ii) Due to oversight, he did not put some procedural questions to the said witness and also on Ex.P1933 - survey report. iii) After giving evidence in the present case by PW.160, he gave evidence on 18.03.2024 in Spl.C.C. No.116 of 2012 pending on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Court (CCH-82), Bengaluru, as PW.5. iv) Evidence given by PW.160 in the present case is contradictory to the evidence given in Spl. C. C. No.116 of 2012. v) Thus, PW.160 needs to be recalled for further cross-examination in respect of procedural aspects and Ex.P1933 to prove the innocence of the petitioner - accused No.1. 4. The CBI filed counter opposing the aforesaid application on the following grounds: i) As per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, day-to-day trial is being conducted and the trial has to be completed by April, 2025. ii) PW.160 was examined in-chief on 10.01.2024. On the same day, he was cross-examined by accused No.2, while the petitioner - accused No.1 adopted the said cross- examination done by accused No.2. Accused Nos.3 and 7 to 9 reported no cross-examination, while accused No.4 cross-examined the said witness on 07.02.2024. iii) At the stage of examination of accused under Section – 313 of Cr.P.C., after more than a year of completion of examination of PW.160, the petitioner filed the present petition with an intention to protract the proceedings. 5. Accused Nos.3 and 7 to 9 reported no cross-examination, while accused No.4 cross-examined the said witness on 07.02.2024. iii) At the stage of examination of accused under Section – 313 of Cr.P.C., after more than a year of completion of examination of PW.160, the petitioner filed the present petition with an intention to protract the proceedings. 5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 dismissed the said Crl.M.P. No.36 of 2025 observing that power conferred under Section - 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons; that the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection; that not to permit a party to re-examine a witness on the same aspects on which the witness was already cross-examined, like in the present case; and that the petition is filed at belated stage. 6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner - accused No.1 filed the present petition contending that PW.160 was examined in the present case on 10.01.2024, whereas he was examined as PW.5 in Bengaluru case on 18.03.2024 in a different version. After noticing the same only the petitioner filed the petition to recall him. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent - CBI. Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court dismissed the petition. i) In support of the same, he placed reliance on the decisions in Manju Devi v. State of Rajashtan , [ (2019) 6 SCC 203 ] ; Savalam Koteswar Rao v. State of Telangana , [2022 SCC OnLine TS 547] and Y. Ramesh v. The State of Telangana , Crl.P. Nos.828 & 945 of 2020, decided on 09.11.2020 (Telangana High Court) 7. Whereas, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI contended that the trial Court was right in dismissing the petition to recall PW.160 and there is no error in it. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the decisions in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, [ (2016) 2 SCC 402 ] ; Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat , [ (2017) 9 SCC 340 ] and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation , [ (2019) 14 SCC 328 ] 8. In view of the rival submissions, it is necessary to dwell into certain relevant facts of the case. In view of the rival submissions, it is necessary to dwell into certain relevant facts of the case. Originally, M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, accused No.4 represented by the petitioner - accused No.1, held three (03) mining leases granted by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.Nos.73, 117 and 7, dated 28.07.2007, 07.10.2006 and 10.01.2007 for 25.98 Hectares; 39.50 Hectares and 68.50 Hectares respectively. The mines under the first mentioned two leases are situated in Obulapuram Forest Compartment No.695 and the third mine is located in Malpangudi Forest Compartment Nos.697 and 698. M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd. held mining leases for 27.12 Hectares and 20.24 Hectares adjacent to the area leased to the petitioner. The allegation is that M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited has not only encroached into the leased area of M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Private Limited, but also into Bellary Reserve Forest and has been carrying on illegal activities. 9. Perusal of record would reveal that in the said context, at the request of CBI, Singareni Collieries Officials deputed PW.160 to conduct survey with the assistance of Senior Survey Officer, Mr. Sadanandam and Deputy Superintendent Survey Officer, Mr. K. Rama Shankarayya. After receiving the documents from Survey of India, he conducted survey in the months of May and June, 2011 in the presence of officials of respective departments. As per his Survey, it is found that the area of mining lease is found to be 78.1813 Hectares as against the applied mining lease of 68.52 Hectares. Accordingly, PW.160 submitted his survey report, which is Ex.P1933 containing 115 sheets. He noted the observations in paragraph No.6 and conclusions in paragraph No.7. 10. PW.160 came to witness box and gave his evidence on 10.01.2024 in the present case before the trial Court on the aforesaid lines. At the request of accused, his cross-examination was deferred. On 01.02.2024, PW.160 was cross-examined by accused No.2. However, the petitioner herein - accused No.1 adopted the cross-examination of accused No.2. The very same witness was also examined in-chief in Special C.C. No.116 of 2012 pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Court (CCH-82), Bengaluru as PW.5 on 18.03.2024 and was cross-examined on different dates i.e., 16.04.2024, 08.07.2024, 23.07.2024, 13.08.2024 and 14.08.2024. The part of chief examination was done after one and half months and, thereafter cross-examination was done. 11. The part of chief examination was done after one and half months and, thereafter cross-examination was done. 11. The main contention of the petitioner is that the evidence given by PW.160 before the trial Court in Hyderabad and the evidence given by him before the Bengaluru Court as PW.5 are contradictory to each other and, therefore, he wanted to recall him for which he filed the present application. 12. As discussed above, in the present case, PW.160 was cross-examined on 01.02.2024, whereas his last cross-examination was completed before the Bengaluru Court was on 14.08.2024. Whereas, the petitioner filed the application to recall PW.160 was on 17.02.2025 i.e., after lapse of about six (06) months. There is no whisper in the petition as to the delay caused in filing such an application. The said application was filed at the stage of examination of accused under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Having considered all the said aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order. 13. It is settled principle of law that an application under Section - 311 of Cr.P.C. can be filed at any stage, even during the course of arguments. At the same time, the party, who files the said application, has to mention satisfactory reasons. 14. Section - 311 of Cr.P.C. deals with the power of Court to summon material witness, or examine person present, and provides that the court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision. 15. The Apex Court in V.N. Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar , (2021) 3 SCC 661 held that the object underlying Section - 311 of 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. 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”. 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 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said “wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion”. The aim of every court is to discover the truth. Section - 311 of Cr.P.C. 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 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice. 16. Court can call a witness not only on the motion of either prosecution or the defence but also it can do so on its own motion as held by the Apex Court in Heeralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [(1997) 2 Crimes 634 (MP)] 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, now coming to the case on hand, perusal of record would reveal that 219 witnesses were examined in C.C. No.1 of 2012 and 3400 documents were marked. PW.160 was examined in-chief on 10.01.2024, he was cross-examined by accused No.2 on 01.02.2024 and the same was adopted by the petitioner - accused No.1. In the present case, instead of cross- examining PW.160 by accused No.1 first, he was cross-examined by accused No.2 and such cross-examination was adopted by the petitioner. Originally, the crime pertains to the year 2009 and C.C. is of the year 2012. The Apex Court directed the trial Court to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis. The trial Court also sought extension of time vide letter dated 26.11.2024. Vide order dated 10.01.2025, the Apex Court granted four (04) months time from that date to dispose of the matter and it is going to expire by 09.05.2025 18. Knowing all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed the application seeking to recall PW.160 without any valid ground that too after a lapse of six (06) months. Vide order dated 10.01.2025, the Apex Court granted four (04) months time from that date to dispose of the matter and it is going to expire by 09.05.2025 18. Knowing all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed the application seeking to recall PW.160 without any valid ground that too after a lapse of six (06) months. There is no explanation by the petitioner to the said delay in the petition filed under Section - 311 of Cr.P.C. Recall of a witness cannot be permitted to fill up lacunas. 19. In the light of the above discussion, the trial Court passed the impugned order considering all the aspects and there is no error to quash the same. Thus, the present petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.