Re-examination of witnesses under Section 138 of the Evidence Act is crucial for clarification of ambiguities, allowing for new matters with court permission, enhancing fairness in trials.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed the above petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court on 19.08.2025, whereby denying permission sought for by the learned Public Prosecutor to re-examine PW-77.

2.The contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/CBI is that in this case there are totally 16 accused. A1/M.P.Kaliyaperumal is the Head/Consultant of Vocational Training and Entrepreneurship Development (VTED) Division in Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development (RGNIYD), Sriperambadur and A2/T.Gopinath is the Training Officer in RGNIYD. A4 is M/s.Providers Skill Academy Private Limited represented by its Managing Director-A3. A5 is then Director of RGNIYD. A6 to A16 are Societies/Trusts.

3.The case against the accused is that A1 and A2 entered into a conspiracy with A3 to A16 in issuance of work orders for imparting computer training to rural candidates, thereby fabricated invoices and receipts and released a sum of Rs.38,52,000/- to A3 to A16 and thus caused a wrongful loss to Government of India. During trial, several witnesses examined and lastly PW-77 examined and through him Exs.P130 and P131/Enquiry Report marked which is running to more than 100 pages. A1 and A2 independently cross examined the witnesses at length and the other accused namely, A3 to A16 reported that they are adopting the cross examination of A1 and A2. During the cross examination, the report was put to the witnesses and to the several part of the report, attention was drawn and also with regard to the role played by other witnesses, namely, Lakshmi, Kalabalaji, Kaliyaperumal, Dr.Girish and Dr.Kulanthairajan and others. During cross examination, for some questions, the witnesses though answered positively, had not given details with regard to the custody of the files and author of the report, about the scheme and with regard to motive of Iyyangar, the then Director and further about the Registrar of the institution. As regards these aspects, there is some ambiguity. The oral evidence is not in conformity with the report and other documents, hence ambiguity arose. For these reasons, the witness ought to be re-examined for the purpose of clarification. It would be only for betterment and in the interest of justice, so that there is no ambiguity remains and no advantage or disadvantage is caused either to the prosecution or to the accused. Further, re-examining is permissible under the Evidence Act.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rammi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1999) 8 SCC 649 , held that the very purpose of re-examination is to explain matters which have been brought down in cross-examination and further it should be construed that re-examination should be confined to clarification of ambiguities which have been brought down in cross-examination. Further it held that if the party who called the witness, feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross-examination, he has the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get the explanation. Further if the Public Prosecutor feels that new matters should be elicited from the witness, he can do so, but the only caution notice is that it should be a requirement on the facts of the case and he should seek permission of the Court. Thereafter, if the Court thinks that such new matters are necessary for providing any material fact, Court is at liberty in granting permission to put necessary questions.

5. The main contesting parties, who cross examined the witnesses are Accused 1 and 2. The learned counsel for first respondent/A-1 submitt