N. K. VAKIL, J. ( 1 ) 13 persons were tried in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1963 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Mehsana for having formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing simple and grievous hurts to the assailants of one Fulaji Bhawanji and also to those who came to their rescue. They were charged with having committed various offences in prosecution of that common object. Three out of them were acquitted. The rest were convicted of having committed various offences and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for varying periods extending up to five years and also to pay fines. Out of these 10 convicted persons original accused Nos. 1 2 4 5 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1964 in this Court against their conviction and original accused Nos. 3 6 7 8 12 and 13 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 1964 Both the appeals are dealt with together in this judgment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. On behalf of the appellants a preliminary point was raised for our consideration. It was submitted that the trial Court did not permit full cross-examination of a very important witness and that act on the part of the learned trial Judge has resulted in grave injustice to the accused j and therefore a retrial should be ordered. It was pointed out that the trial before the Sessions Court began on the 12th of February 1964 and the complainant was examined on that day. On the next day two Medical Officers and two panch witnesses were examined and than the next witness Padhaji who was most seriously injured in that group was examined. It appears that on the 12th advocate Mr. Barot had appeared for the defence and had conducted the cross-examination of the complainant. On the 13th however Mr. Vyas appeared for the accused and he cross-examined the witnesses including witness Padhaji. The grievance made before us is that the learned trial Judge did not permit him to finish the cross-examination on grounds which were not justifiable in the eye of law. In order to substantiate this objection our attention was drawn to a pursis Exh. 44 which was filed by Mr. Vyas and the order passed thereon. On reading Exh. The grievance made before us is that the learned trial Judge did not permit him to finish the cross-examination on grounds which were not justifiable in the eye of law. In order to substantiate this objection our attention was drawn to a pursis Exh. 44 which was filed by Mr. Vyas and the order passed thereon. On reading Exh. 44 and the order thereon it becomes clear that the cross-examination was not allowed to be finished and the learned Judge for reasons stated in the order interfered and prevented the learned advocate from putting further questions to the witness by way of cross-examination. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that the reasons given for depriving the accused of their valuable right of cross-examination of that important witness were neither just nor proper and the learned Judge had no authority in law to stop the cross-examination in that manner. It is submitted that this illegal act has resulted in grave prejudice and demands a retrial. ( 2 ) THERE can be no doubt that the Court has both the discretion and the authority to control cross-examination of a witness. Not only that but the Court has a duty to interfere and keep the cross-examination within legitimate bound. Where the right of cross-examination is abused by mere repetition of questions to the same witness or irrelevant questions are asked the Court has certainly the discretion and also the power to put a stop to such abuse of that right. But it is also to be kept in mind by every Court that cross-examination is one of the most important and effective right given by law to extract the truth and some latitude has to be given to the cross-examining advocate. It would not be just or proper to exercise the right to curtail cross-examination if it has the effect of prejudicing the case of the party on whose behalf that right is exercised. It is all the more so in a criminal case where the accused in likely to be so prejudiced. ( 3 ) MR. Thakore the learned advocate of the appellants urged that as the pursis shows the cross-examination was actually. cut short by the Court while it was in progress and many questions were disallowed wrongly before the closure was applied. ( 3 ) MR. Thakore the learned advocate of the appellants urged that as the pursis shows the cross-examination was actually. cut short by the Court while it was in progress and many questions were disallowed wrongly before the closure was applied. The pursis filed on behalf of the appellant does not disclose the questions disallowed nor the grounds on which further cross-examination was disallowed but the learned Judge has fairly put down in his order all the grounds and facts on which he exercised his right to stop further cross-examination. It appears from the order that the learned Judge purported to put a stop to the cross-examination because in his view the questions placed were irrelevant and unnecessary. The grounds as to why in his view the questions were unnecessary and irrelevant are that (1) the witness was in the hands of the learned advocate Mr. Vyas for cross-examination for more than about 12 hours. Mr. Vyas was repeating the same questions and he was informed that it was not necessary to repeat. (2) Certain questions were not necessary because the complainant who was examined and cross-examined on the previous day had given some admissions. Mr. Vyas perhaps had not gone through the evidence of the complainant already recorded. His attention was invited often to the fact that certain questions were not necessary because what he wanted to establish through those questions had already been established in the evidence of the complainant. Inspite of that he had continued to put questions which were not only irrelevant but also not necessary. (3) After giving sufficient warnings for about 10 minutes to the learned advocate before the cross-examination was closed it was brought to an end. There were 10 injured persons and they were all to depose as eye-witnesses. Only relevant and necessary questions can be allowed. It was in the interest of justice and in order to avoid delay that the unnecessary cross-examination was checked. ( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration is was the learned Judge right in his reasoning. With respect we are of the opinion that he was not. Of course there can be no dispute that if a question is repeated to the same witness on the same topic the Court can stop that being done. If a question is irrelevant the Court has certainly the right to disallow that. With respect we are of the opinion that he was not. Of course there can be no dispute that if a question is repeated to the same witness on the same topic the Court can stop that being done. If a question is irrelevant the Court has certainly the right to disallow that. But in this case the order itself shows that the questions were disallowed on the ground that on certain topics the complainant had made admissions and therefore questions put on those topics were disallowed both as being irrelevant and also as unnecessary. When a witness is to be compelled to speak the truth against his will the greatest utility of the cross-examination is in the drawing out of what he wishes to keep back. This can be done by repeating the interrogation in greatest detail. It may be that certain points had been established in the cross-examination of the complainant by way of admissions but that cannot render questions put on the same points for extracting the same admissions or similar admissions from the other eye-witness Padhaji unnecessary or irrelevant. May be he may not make those admissions Then the accused can attack the evidence of those witnesses as being inconsistent may attack the veracity of the important witness on the ground that he was prevaricating or that he was not prepared to tell the truth. Again the answers to those questions may lead to some other important disclosures It cannot therefore be said that those questions were unnecessary. Those questions can never be held to be irrelevant. If they were relevant for examining the complainant and extracted admissions from him they would equally be relevant for this eye-witness also. Therefore these questions can neither be held to be irrelevant nor unnecessary and the order of the learned Judge of closing down the crossexamination and not allowing those questions has to be held to be unjustified as it would result in prejudice to the accused. ( 5 ) BUT the learned Assistant Government Pleader urged that on two grounds this objection raised cannot be sustained. Firstly it was tried to be pointed out from the evidence of the complainant that at best certain admissions can be said to have been made by him on some minor or subsidiary points like relationship of the accused or the topography of the place of incident. Firstly it was tried to be pointed out from the evidence of the complainant that at best certain admissions can be said to have been made by him on some minor or subsidiary points like relationship of the accused or the topography of the place of incident. At the same time it was submitted that it was difficult to say on what topics actually admissions could be said to have been made or what actually could be said to be admissions. This submission in our view on the contrary would support the contention raised by the appellants that though it was difficult to exactly say what were the admissions yet the Court disallowed the question on topics on the ground that the complainant had already made admissions. But as observed above even if it could be said that the complainant had made certain admissions it would be wrong to disallow the questions on that topic to another important eye-witness. It was then submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the pursis Exh. 44 makes a mere general statement and complains about the accused having been prejudiced by the stopping of the cross-examination but it does not disclose the material to show how the prejudice was caused. They could have pointed out the questions which they liked to place on particular topics in order to permit the appellate Court or even the trial Court to come to proper conclusions. This they could have done even by giving some indication in a way as not to prejudice the defence case or give advantage to the prosecution. The pursis does not at all indicate that the learned advocate desired to put questions in cross-examination on any other topics than those which were disallowed on the ground of admission. It was therefore not possible to hold that the disallowing of the questions had resulted in any prejudice to the accused. Reliance was placed for this submission on Brahmaya and another v. The King A. I. R. 1938 Rangoon 442. We find it difficult to accept this submission. The very fact that questions were disallowed on the ground of the complainant having made certain admissions we have found would justify or necessitate a remand to allow cross-examination of that witness as pointed out. We find it difficult to accept this submission. The very fact that questions were disallowed on the ground of the complainant having made certain admissions we have found would justify or necessitate a remand to allow cross-examination of that witness as pointed out. Though the pursis did not disclose any details at that stage the order of the learned Judge as pointed out fully disclosed the necessary facts and the grounds on which the further cross-examination was stopped. Besides at that stage the only complaint that could be made on behalf of the appellants was that they were deprived of the right of the cross-examination and put that fact on record. They may not at that stage complain about the prejudice that was likely to be caused. The fact of prejudice being caused may be a proper consideration for the appellate Court to make and to decide whether as a matter of fact such prejudice has been caused or not. In our view therefore these grounds made out on behalf of the prosecution are not strong enough to meet the objection raised on behalf of the appellants. Even the case cited on behalf of the prosecution doer not seem to help them. We find the following observations made by the learned Judge:-"if after several warnings an advocate persists in abusing his position in this way he may be directed to resume his seat but only when the Judge has enquired what are the material matters on which he still desires to cross-examine and is satisfied that no satisfactory reply has been forthcoming from the advocate and that no legitimate questions by him have been shut out. In any case the Judge should make a note of the submission of any advocate as to further questions which he desires to put or as to any specific question which has been disallowed. " ( 6 ) BEFORE making these observations the learned Judge had expressed his view that When irrelevant topics are pursued at great length. and persistence is shown in going over the same ground again and again in the hope of making the witness appear discrepant some limit must be placed upon the latitude given. Continued irrelevancies and repetitions are not to be endured indefinitely. and persistence is shown in going over the same ground again and again in the hope of making the witness appear discrepant some limit must be placed upon the latitude given. Continued irrelevancies and repetitions are not to be endured indefinitely. It is very clear as to when in the view of the learned Judge the cross-examination could be stopped and we are in complete agreement with the learned Judge that if irrelevant questions are repeated the Court has the power to put a stop to it. But even then according to the learned Judge it would be necessary for the Judge closing down the cross-examination to make the inquiries as quoted above. The record of the present case does not disclose any such enquiry having been made by the learned Judge nor any note having been so made. We do not propose however to express our view whether it is necessary or not to make such an inquiry or to make such a note. In any case the decision cited is of no help to the prosecution. ( 7 ) THERE is no doubt in our mind therefore that the accused must be given an opportunity to further cross-examine witness Padhaji. But Mr. Thakore the learned advocate for the appellants strenuously urged that the matter should not be remanded merely for the purpose of giving the accused an opportunity of further re-cross-examining the witness but a full retrial must be ordered to enable the accused to cross-examine all the witnesses. He submitted that as the Court had disallowed questions in cross-examination on the topics on which admissions were made by the complainant it would be proper to infer that an advocate in deference to that order would not put those questions to the other eight eye-witnesses also. It was therefore necessary that the matter should be sent back for a retrial and not merely for the purposes of allowing further crossexamination of witness Padhaji. The learned Assistant Government Pleader however contended that the appellants are not entitled in any case to a full retrial. It was firstly urged that the record discloses that the same pattern of cross-examination is not followed as regards the other witnesses and therefore it cannot be said that similar questions were not put to those other witnesses because of that order. It was firstly urged that the record discloses that the same pattern of cross-examination is not followed as regards the other witnesses and therefore it cannot be said that similar questions were not put to those other witnesses because of that order. It was further urged that this contention was never raised by the accused either before the trial Court or even in the grounds of appeal before this Court. We do find that in the memo of appeal the only contention raised is that Padhaji was not allowed to be fully cross-examined which has resulted in injustice to the accused. There is no ground made out that because of the order the other witnesses were also not fully cross-examined. There is nothing to show on the record before us that the learned advocate desisted from putting questions which may be relevant to other witnesses also and at this stage we cannot assume that relevant questions were not put to other witnesses because of the order passed by the learned Judge on pursis Exh. 44. In our view it would not be fair nor just to allow another innings to the accused by permitting a full retrial. We find that under the facts and circumstances of this case the only right to which the accused would be entitled to is to have an opportunity to fully crossexamine witness Padhaji. ( 8 ) HOWEVER after this point was fully argued Mr. Thakore stated that the appellants did not want to merely have the opportunity of crossexamining witness Padhaji alone and that they would prefer to argue out the appeals as the record stands if a full retrial was not given. The opportunity therefore which we were prepared to give to the appellants they have not thought fit to avail of and the appeals have been fully argued before us. ( 9 ) [as the opportunity to cross-examine that particular witness was not availed of the appeals were heard on merits. ] Appeals dismissed. .