1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1754 OF 2009 M/s.A.C.P. Industries Limited & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. Keynote Corporate Services Limited & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.I.A. Bagaria for the petitioners. Mr.R.R.Salvi with Mr.P.P.Salvi i/b. Bagla Dandekar & Co., for respondent no.1. Mr.S.N.Gawade, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order permitting re- examination of the complainant. On consideration of the earlier examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the trial Court has permitted re-examination, having regard to the settled position in law that re- 2 examination need not be restricted to an ambiguity. Mr.Bagaria, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order would result in a roving re-examination. This apprehension appears to be unfounded, in view of the fact that the application for re-examination was made with reference to specific matters referred to in the application and the order for re-examination must, therefore, be read along with the application. Hence, it is made clear that the re-examination shall be restricted to the aspects specified in the application. 3. Accordingly, the rule stands discharged. S.A. BOBDE, J.