1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.311 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ... Petitioner. Versus Suresh S/o Vithoba Dalvi ... Respondent. ... Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the State. Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.09.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner - State seeks to challenge order dated 25.2.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.10/2004 on an application (Exh.20). 2 2. The Respondent is facing prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge in Special Case No.10/2004 for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution examined complainant Bhimrao Adhav (P.W.1) on 12.2.2001. He supported case of the prosecution through out his examination-in-Chief. However,during the cross-examination he gave certain admissions which were supportive of the defence. The learned Addl. P.P. therefore, submitted an application vide Exh.20 on the same day for allowing cross-examination of the witness. The application came to be rejected. 3. Heard learned A.P.P.and learned counsel. 4. The point involved in this petition is short one. Whether the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse is the question to be determined. The learned Special Judge held that scope of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. does not permit recalling of P.W.1 (complainant) with a view to ask further questions to him by the 3 prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, in fact, went astray while passing the impugned order inasmuch as the question is not whether the recalling of the witness is required U/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. but it was required to be seen whether U/s 154 of the Evidence Act, such leave to cross-examine the witness could have been granted. The Court is required to exercise discretion wherever veracity of the statement is required to be examined. A witness who has echoed to the defence during the course of cross- examination may be cross-examined by the party by calling him. The whole of the evidence of such a witness does not become worthless. Therefore, there is no substance in the observation of the learned Judge that the admissions given by witness would be completely wiped out due to his recalling. The witness can be cross-examined at any stage as and when the hostility is writ large from his conduct. Under these circumstances, rejection of the request put forth by the learned A.P.P. was improper. The learned Special Judge seems to have overlooked the import of Section 154 of the Evidence Act and wrongly considered 4 the question from stand point of view only by considering scope of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The learned Special Judge is directed to reconsider the application on merits and having regard to the purport of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp31109