As per case facts, a petition was filed against an order allowing the prosecution to recall the Investigating Officer for further examination-in-chief. The accused, facing trial under the NDPS Act ... for recovery of intoxicant tablets, argued that the recall was to fill lacunae and expand the trial's scope, potentially implicating a previously discharged individual. Many facts sought were already on record via other witnesses. The question arose whether recalling a witness for inadvertently omitted facts, even if available elsewhere, amounts to filling a lacuna or is essential for the just decision of the case as a whole. Finally, the High Court affirmed the Order, stating that the power to recall a witness under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, is broad and can be exercised at any stage for the overall just decision, not just for the current accused, and that proving inadvertently omitted facts via the relevant officer is not filling a lacuna if essential for truth.