IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court must follow the proper procedure under the Indian Evidence Act before declaring a witness as hostile.

JUDGMENT :

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial court) in Sessions Case No. 11/2015 arising out of FIR No. 227/2014 lodged at Police Station-ACB, CPS, Jaipur, District ACB Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by which the PW 1-Mohanlal Sutrakar (PW-1, for short) was declared hostile at the request of learned Public Prosecutor.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order declaring PW-1 as hostile and permitting the Public Prosecutor to re-examine him is against the statutory provisions of law. It is submitted that if the witness does not stand upon the prosecution story, only then he can be declared hostile and his re-examination can be permitted. It is further submitted that once the cross examination has been conducted, thereafter the party who calls the witness is first supposed to re-examine the witness and thereafter, if the witness does not support his own case, the Court may, if it deems appropriate, declare him as hostile. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any reason before permitting the re-examination of PW-1. Hence, the order dated 07.09.2019 is arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. It appears from the material available on record that PW-1 Mohanlal Sutrakar was examined as prosecution witness on 09.02.2018. After the examination-in-chief was over, the learned counsel for the petitioner cross-examined the said witness on 22.10.2018. After the cross-examination was over, the learned Public Prosecutor requested the Court orally to declare the said witness as hostile and prayed for his re-examination. It further appears from the record that the same was objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the defence and after considering the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the defence counsel, by the impugned order dated 07.09.2019, learned Trial Court allowed the request made by the learned Public Prosecutor, whereby the witness was declared to be hostile and learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to re-examine him. It further appears that the counsel for the petitioner filed an application to defer the cross-examination with a view to challenge the impugned order by taking recourse to appropriate legal remedies and the present petition is filed challenging the impugned order, as aforesaid.

6. In the present case, it appears from the deposition of PW-1 that he has supported the story of the prosecution. However, in cross-examination, PW-1 has answered certain more questions as were put up to him by the defence. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Trial Court has declared PW-1 as hostile on the oral request made by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the witness has admitted to certain facts which are contrary to his deposition in his chief-examination.

7. Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with Examination of Witnesses. The relevant provisions necessary for the disposal of present miscellaneous petition are reproduced below for ready reference:

"Section 137. Examination-in-chief.- The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination.- The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.

Re-examination.- The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shal