THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 10017 of 2010. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dt. 30.8.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No. 1044 of 2010 in C.C.No. 43 of 2005. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB Cases. Before the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, the prosecution filed the above Crl.M.P. under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to reopen the case and recall Pw.5, the mediator and Pw.7 the Investigating Officer for the purpose of marking of the record which was said to be seized during post trap proceedings. It is stated that the said record could not be filed along with the charge sheet due to over sight. The petition was resisted by the petitioner by filing a counter. The learned Special Judge allowed the said petition by the order dt. 30.8.2010. The said order of the learned Special Judge is sought to be quashed in the present criminal petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the prosecution filed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to mark the record which was said to be seized during post trap proceeding by recalling Pws 5 and 7 only to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case and therefore the learned Special Judge ought not to have allowed the petition on the above ground. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court between Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell, Delhi[1] and Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India[2] and contended that mistakes or laches in conducting case by public prosecutor cannot be understood to mean lacuna in prosecution case and that if once the court exercised its power to summon any person as a witness or recall any witness and re-examine him at any stage of the proceedings, the same cannot be countenanced as a legal proposition nor can the power be whittled down merely on the ground that prosecution discovered laches in the prosecution case and that the court can exercise such a power if it consider necessary for a just decision in the matter. In the instant case, the learned Special Judge after exercising discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allowed the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and permitted the prosecution to recall Pws 5 and 7 and mark the record said to be seized during post trap proceedings. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred supra, the discretion exercised by the learned Special Judge cannot be said to be illegal. Further, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner since one of the pages now sought to be marked was already marked as Ex:P.3 and the petitioner will have an opportunity to cross-examine Pws 5 and 7 and dispute the seizure of the record during post trap proceedings. In the circumstances, I see no merit in the petition and accordingly dismiss the same. _________________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 25.10.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 10017 of 2010. ORDER: DT. 25.10.2010. [1] AIR 1999 SC 2292 [2] AIR 1991 SC 1346