IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11223 of 2008 BIDYANAND DUBEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 03 23.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The wider the amplitude of Section 311 Cr.P.C., the greater the need for caution and circumspection in its exercise. This Court has gone through the petition filed for recall of P.W.3 to lead further documentary evidence. All that it states is that by inadvertence evidence with regard to the said documents could not be led and hence the need for recall. PW.3 was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 21.11.2005. Nearly one and half year later the application for recall was filed. It is not a case where the evidence was not available with the petitioner, but he procured the same subsequently. The evidence was available with him which he did not lead. That was a risk he took for himself. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 14.8.2007 in Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 2006 is not sustainable as it also does not contain any reasons for its 2 satisfaction to allow the application. The provision cannot be utilized to fill lacunae in evidence. The impugned order dated 11.8.2007 is hereby set aside. The application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)