- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) A witness was sought to be treated as hostile by a public prosecutor on the ground that he gave answers in favour of the defence during cross-examination. The trial Judge declined to permit the public prosecutor to cross-examine the witness as per an order passed by him. The C.B.I. which was prosecuting the case took up the matter before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court declined to interfere. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(3.) We read the copy of the deposition of PW-39 (Baleshwar Choudhary) on whose evidence the present controversy has arisen. He mentioned about a document executed in 1993 styling the same as a sale deed executed. After referring to the same in the chief-examination, the same witness further stated that he received the consideration thereof in 1983. The said last part of the chief-examination is obviously not in consonance with the prosecution case. But the public prosecutor did not choose to seek permission of the trial Court to put questions to the witness which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Hence the examination proceeded to the cross-examination by the adverse party. It was in the cross-examination that the witness said further details of how he received the consideration. At the said stage public prosecutor requested for permission (after cross-examination was over) to treat the said witness as hostile. Section 154 of the Evidence Act reads thus : 154. Question by party to his own witness.- The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. ;