1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.651 OF 2009 Sanjay S/o Manohar Kuril, Age 28 years, Occ.Labour, R/o Behind Police Quarters, Manwat, Tq.Manwat, Dist. Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mr.Mahesh P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 03.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned A.P.P. waives service. 2 3. The petition is being finally disposed of inasmuch as a very short question is involved therein. 4. The petitioner is original accused No.4 in Sessions trial No.66/2009. The offence alleged is U/s 363, 366-A, 354 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and U/ss 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 5. The prosecutrix is said to be of about 15 years old at the time of alleged incident and was of 16 years when she entered the witness box. In her Police statement U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. she gave Soni, Meena, Urmila, Shanti and Rukhamin. She stated that she was not knowing Prakash Digraskar and Ankush. In order to contradict her testimony, in this context, permission was sought by the petitioner to point out the contradictory part of the Police statement recorded U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. to the witness. The learned Sessions Judge rejected request on the ground that the petitioner was not concerned with any other charges. 3 6. The petitioner may not be concerned with the charges for offences U/ss 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The right of the petitioner for cross-examination of the witness can not be scuttled for the reason that he was not concerned with the said part of the charge. He has right to demonstrate that the prosecutrix has no regard for truth. In order to demolish credibility of the prosecutrix, probably, he wanted to put such a question during course of the cross-examination. The cross- examination of the witness is permissible U/s 145 of the Evidence Act. The Section indicates one of the modes in which credit of the witness is impeached. The legislature intended that the principle of this section should apply and the attention of the witness should be called to those parts of the statement by which it is intended to contradict him by proving that they represent the actual statement of the witness to the Police. The learned Magistrate should have allowed the question to be put when the petitioner wanted to contradict the witness in order to impeach her testimony. In this view of 4 the matter, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, is patently illegal and improper. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to allow the question put forth by the petitioner to the prosecutrix and to record the answer thereof. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp65109