1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the against the Order, dated 16.03.2007 made in Crl.M.P.No.391 of 2006 in C.C.No.17 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

2. The case has been filed against the respondents under Sections 420 r/w 120 (B), 409, 467, 468 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is not in dispute that it is a part-heard case, pending before the court below. One Mr.V.Ramanan, who was the General Manager, Indian Bank, retired in the year 2003 was examined as P.W.2 before the court below. According to the petitioner, the said witness, P.W.2 had deposed his evidence in chief, supporting the prosecution case, however, turned hostile, while he was cross-examined by the third respondent / A3. Since P.W.2 deposed evidence, during cross-examination against the prosecution case and in favour of the third respondent / A3, learned Public Prosecutor requested the court below, to treat him hostile, but the request was negatived by the trial court.

3. It is seen that the revision petitioner herein had filed a petition before the court below seeking permission to treat the said prosecution witness (P.W.2) as a hostile witness, since he did not support the prosecution case and to cross-examine him, but that was negatived unreasonably by the court below, hence, the revision has been preferred before this Court.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that after adducing evidence in chief, as per the prosecution case, P.W.2, being a retired officer of the Bank, deliberately supported the respondents / A3, with an ulterior motive, for reasons best known to him. Therefore, the said witness could have been treated by the court below only as a hostile witness and permitted the petitioner / complainant to cross-examine the witness. However, the court below did not permit the petitioner to treat him hostile and cross-exam the witness (P.W.2). Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that it is a settled proposition of law that the prosecution witness who deposed evidence against the prosecution case should have been treated as hostile witness, as requested by the prosecution, however, the court below refused to treat the witness hostile, though he had voluntarily deposed evidence against the prosecution case and supported the third respondent / A3 in his cross-examination.

5. Mr. Sundar Mohan, learned counsel appearing for R1 submitted that as per the impugned order, P.W.2 has not exhibited any element of hostility and therefore, there was no necessity to treat him hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for R1 and also R3, who appeared party-in-person, drew the attention of this Court to paragraph number 18 and other paragraphs of the impugned order. Paragraph 18 of the orders reads as follows:

"In view of the above discussion it is held that P.W.2 has not exhibited any element of hostility. As already stated the answers mentioned in the petition given by P.W.2 in the cross-examination were on the basis of the statement of LW 58 and further statement of LW 21 and certain other records which have not been put up for perusal to P.W.2 at the time of issue of Ex.P.7 sanction order. The reasons stated in the petition are not convicting. Hence, this petition is dismissed."

They further contended that certain documents were not shown to P.W.2 at the time of passing the sanction order. After perusing the document, he deposed evidence against the prosecution case and therefore, according to the respondents, P.W.2 need not be treated as hostile witness to be cross-examined by the petitioner herein.

6. Per contra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to paragraph number 14 and other portions of the impugned order. It is seen that P.W.2 answered in his cross-examination as follows:

"I agree that the accused N.Chandrasekara Rao is a knowledgeable person with honesty and