By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners ' “original accused persons call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya below Exhibit ' “269 in the cross-examination of the Prosecution Witness No.23 (the original complainant) in the Sessions Case No.29 of 2011.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarized asunder:

2.1 The petitioners herein are being tried in the Court of the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya in connection with the Sessions Case No.29 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 304(B), 498A, 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.2 It appears from the materials on record that the original first informant the brother of the deceased is being examined as the prosecution witness No.23. His deposition is still in progress. On 14.07.2015, when he was being examined by the defence counsel, a question was put to him which reads thus:

' Whether you can tell me in which schools and college Aarti (deceased) studied from 1st Standard till her Graduation ?'

2.3 The above referred question which was put to the complainant in his examination by the defence counsel was disallowed, as according to the trial Court, the same was not relevant and had nothing to do with the case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the defence counsel was also not ready and willing to explain the relevancy of such a question. The trial Judge observed that in the absence of any such explanation by the defence counsel, as regards the relevancy of the question, the same was disallowed.

2.4 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Judge, the applicants ' “ the original accused have come up with this application.

3. Mr. Premal Rachh, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below committed an error in disallowing the question referred to above. He submitted that the defence counsel was reluctant to explain the relevancy of such question because the explanation would have disclosed the defence of the petitioners. In such circumstances, although the trial Judge insisted to explain the relevancy of the disputed question, the defence counsel was not able to clarify the same. Mr. Rachh submitted that in any view of the matter, the question, which was put to the complainant, could not be said to be absolutely irrelevant.

4. He submitted relying on Section 138 of the Evidence Act that in the cross-examination, the question need not be confined to the fact testified by the witness. He submitted that during the course of examination, the accused is not required to disclose his defence. Therefore, a relevant question can be asked in the cross-examination without touching the facts deposed in the Examination-in-Chief in such a way that the witness commences on such question to the ultimate benefit of the defence.

5. Mr. Rachh relied on one decision of this Court rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Kanjariya Harjibhai Valjibhai v. State of Gujarat and others [Criminal Revision Application (Against Conviction — Negotiable Instruments Act) No.398 of 2014 decided on 17.12.2014].

6. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Rachh prayed that there being merit in this petition, the same be allowed and the defence counsel may be permitted to put the disputed question to the original complainant.

7. On the other hand, this petition has been opposed by Ms. Gayatri Jadeja, the learned advocate appearing for the original complainant and Ms. Hansa Punani, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent ' “the State of Gujarat. They both submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned trial Judge in disallowing the question. They submitted that no doubt, the cross-examination is one of the most important pr