Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is an accused and is being prosecuted by the C.B.I. for committing an offence of bribery in R.C. Case No. 14A199R, the trial of which is in progress before the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) Ranchi 3. It appears from the order dated 23.5.2001 of the trial court (Annexure-1) that P.W.7, Pawan Kumar who was being cross-examined from an earlier date, was further cross-examined by the defence on 23.5.2001 and thereafter was discharged. Thereafter a petition under section 154 of Evidence Act was filed on that very date i.e. 25.5.2001 on behalf of the prosecution by the Special Public Prosecutor with a prayer to permit the prosecution to declare P.W.7 as hostile witness and to allow the prosecution to cross-examination the said witness, on the ground that the said was gained over by the accused and he had resiled from his earlier statement made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before police as well from his statement made by him during examination in chief in court. 4. A rejoinder to the said petition was also filed on behalf of the accused objecting to the prayer of the prosecution. 5. The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 23.11.2002 has allowed the prayer of the petitioner and hence the accused-petitioner had filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the impugned order as aforesaid. 6. Mr. N. N. Sinha the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that P.W.7 was discharged after the cross-examination on behalf of the defence and as such at this stage under section 154 of the Evidence Act a witness cannot be declared hostile and he cannot be allowed to for cross-examined by the prosecution. 7. He further submits that a witness can be declared hostile at the stage of his examination in chief only when he resiles from his earlier statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Mr. N. N. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the defence took certain facts from the mouth of the said witness, the prosecution with a view to fill up the lacuna has made such a prayer which cannot be allowed. 9. In support of his submission, Mr. 8. Mr. N. N. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the defence took certain facts from the mouth of the said witness, the prosecution with a view to fill up the lacuna has made such a prayer which cannot be allowed. 9. In support of his submission, Mr. Sinha has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Consolidation Coffee Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2669. 10. In order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Sinha, it is advantageous to examine first, Section 154 of the Evidence Act which quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :- Section-154 of the Evidence Act Question by party to his own witness ; "The court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party" 11. From a plain reading of the section it clearly emerges firstly, that it is the discretion of the court to allow or to refuse such prayer, secondly, that section 154 of the Evidence Act does not in terms or by necessary implication confine the exercise of the power by the court before the examination in chief is concluded or to a particular stage of examination of the witness, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1964 S.C.1563. The scope and applicability of Section 154 of the Evidence Act fell for decision before the Supreme Court in Rabindra Kr. Dey vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1977 S.C.170 wherein it was held that it is wide in scope and the discretion is entirely left to the court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. It is, however, well settled that discretion must be judicially and properly exercised in the interest of justice. 12. A party should not be normally allowed to cross-examination its own witness and declare the same hostile unless the court is satisfied that the statement of the witness exhibits an element of hostility or that he has resiled from the material statement which he made before an earlier authority or where the court is satisfied that the witness is not speaking the truth and it may be necessary to cross-examine him to get out the truth. 13. 13. In order to ascertain the intention of the witness or his conduct the court may look into the statement made by the witness in different stages and then should exercise his judicial discretion. 14. In the present case, from perusal of the impugned order it does not appear that the learned trial court has exercised its discretion judicially. No reason has been assigned at all by the learned trial court for allowing the prayer of the prosecution. The learned trial court has allowed the prayer only because it held the petition to be maintainable. The trial court was right in holding that the petition was maintainable but even then the prayer could not have been allowed in routine manner. The specific reasons were necessary to be assigned for allowing such prayer after considering the statement of the witness made at difference stages which has not been done in the present case. 15. In that view of the matter this application is allowed, order of the learned trial court dated 23.2.02 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for hearing afresh on the petition u/s 154 of the Evidence Act and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law.