THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10561 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.20 of 2006, whereby the Special Public Prosecutor was permitted to contradict the previous statements of the witness (PW.1), without declaring the witness as hostile witness. Heard. The petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the prosecution, as the complainant/PW.1- T.Ram Manohar Lohia, in his chief-examination, deposed contrary to his statements recorded by the police under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and has not supported the case of the prosecution to some extent, the Special Public Prosecutor, on 21.09.2010, sought permission of the Court to contradict the witness with reference to previous statements without declaring the witness as hostile witness. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the judgment cited by the Special Public Prosecutor and the entire chief-examination of the witness, passed the impugned order dated 21.09.2010 stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal petition is filed. The word “hostile” is nowhere defined in the Indian Evidence Act. The mode of putting questions by party to his own witness is provided under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, which runs as follows: “(1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. (2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.” The above section clearly indicates that the Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him that might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Further, in the case on hand, the learned trial Judge recorded the reasons for permitting the Special Public Prosecutor to contradict the previous statements of the witness without declaring the witness as hostile. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court is of the view that the procedure followed by the learned trial Judge in passing the impugned order is not erroneous in law and it does not cause prejudice to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to cross-examine the witness (PW.1) and put questions to him with reference to the statement made in his chief- examination. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 02.11.2011 v v