Section 311 CrPC permits witness recall and additional documents when needed for a just decision, not to fill a lacuna.

Section 311 CrPC confers a wide discretion to summon, recall or re-examine a witness at any stage when the evidence is essential for a just decision. Additional documents linked to reassessment orders already on record were allowed because their production would assist both sides, including the defence, and would not prejudice the accused, with further cross-examination remaining available. The request was therefore treated as distinct from an attempt to cure a defect in the prosecution case, and the objection that it was belated or meant to fill a lacuna was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in permitting the prosecution to recall a witness and receive additional documents under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or whether the request amounted to filling up a lacuna in the prosecution case.

Analysis: The power under section 311 is wide and may be exercised at any stage if the evidence is essential to a just decision. The additional documents related to reassessment orders already marked and formed the basis of those orders. Their production would assist both sides, particularly the defence, and their reception would not prejudice the accused, especially since the prosecution side had not been closed and further cross-examination could be permitted. The circumstances were therefore different from cases where recall was sought merely to repair defects in the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in allowing recall of the witness and reception of the additional documents. The objection that the application was belated or intended to fill up a lacuna was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the orders permitting additional evidence were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 311 confers a broad discretionary power to summon, recall, or re-examine evidence whenever it is necessary for the just decision of the case, and such power may be exercised even after the trial has advanced if it does not merely serve to fill a lacuna in the prosecution case.

---