SSK/909 1 revn 552.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 552 OF 2011 Shailendra Anna Godbole ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Murtaza M Najmi, advocate for the applicant. Mr. D N Salvi, advocate for CBI. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr.Najmi and Mr.Salvi, learned counsel for the applicant and respondent respectively. 2. By the revision application, the applicant who is an accused in Special Case No. 137 of 2009 is challenging Order dated 17th November, 2011 passed by learned Special Judge below application at Exhibit "64" in the aforesaid CBI special case. By way of the said application, the prosecution prayed that PW4 be declared as hostile witness and prosecution be allowed to cross-examine him. This application is allowed by the Special Judge. PW-4 - Shree Bhimraj S Bhandari is a panch- witness. He was examined by the prosecution and cross-examined SSK/909 2 revn 552.11 by the accused. I have perused the examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examination of this witness. This witness has resiled from material statement. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that verification panchnama at Exhibit "23" was prepared and the signatures of the other witness including himself were obtained on it. However, in cross- examination, he has stated that the panchnama was not written in his presence. He has further stated in examination-in-chief that the contents of pre-trap panchnama at Exhibit "24" are true and correct. However, in cross-examination, he stated that it is true that he has not gone through the entire pre-trap panchnama at Exhibit "24" on that day. PW-4 further in his examination-in-chief stated that powder was applied to eight notes of Rs. 500/- each. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that except noting down of note numbers, nothing took place in his presence. He has also stated in his examination-in-chief that the panchnama of the entire proceedings was prepared and his signature was obtained on it. However, in his cross, he has stated that the contents of the post-trap panchnama were written by the CBI officers and they were not read over to him, and therefore, he is not able to tell what was written in it. 3. If the above portion of the examination-in-chief and the cross- examination of PW-4 is perused, then, it is obvious that this witness has resiled from material statement. He has stated something which is SSK/909 3 revn 552.11 destructive of the prosecution case. The manner in which the witness has answered to the questions is also important. The intention of PW4 is obvious. Under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, the powers of the court to declare any witness as hostile are discretionary. The court can even after completion of the cross can declare the witness hostile and permit prosecution to cross-examine the witness. The accused is entitled to re-cross examine the witness and, therefore, no prejudice will be caused to him. In any case, the evidence of this witness will have to be appreciated at the time of final argument. Learned Special Judge, in my opinion, has correctly arrived at the conclusion and allowed the application of the prosecution. I do not find any error, so as to enable this Court to interfere with the impugned order. The criminal revision application is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)