BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the CBI aggrieved by the order dated 14. 10. 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge whereby the application moved by the CBI under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for re-examination of the PW1 (Daljeet Singh) was disallowed. Notice in this revision petition was directed to be issued on 01. 05. 2006 and fresh notice was directed on 28. 07. 2006. The respondents have been served but they have chosen not to appear. In these circumstances, I am left with no alternative but to hear the matter merely on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the CBI. ( 2 ) IN the impugned order, the circumstances under which PW1 turned hostile and was cross-examined by the counsel for CBI have been clearly indicated. The reasons for disallowing the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. are also set out therein. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:"pw1 Daljeet Singh happens to be the complainant in this case. He was examined by the prosecution as its witness on 21. 1. 2004 On that date his examination could not be concluded because the learned prosecutor requested for adjournment as he felt that the witness was perplexed and was nervous. Daljeet Singh was further subjected to examination on 20. 4. 2004 On that day a request was made by the Public Prosecutor for CBI that the witness was not supporting the prosecution as he was resiling from his previous statement made u/s 161 Cr. P. C. He sought permission to cross-examine the witness. Permission was accordingly granted. It was only thereafter that the witness was again re-called for cross examination by the learned defence counsel. The cross examination was concluded on 2. 9. 2004 Therefore to say that PW1 Daljeet Singh has resiled from his statement, his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel for the accused is not factually correct. In fact this witness did not support the prosecution story even during his examination in chief. Simply because he has deviated from his statement made u/s 161 Cr. P. C. during his cross examination, it cannot be said that the witness turned hostile only in the cross examination. In fact this witness did not support the prosecution story even during his examination in chief. Simply because he has deviated from his statement made u/s 161 Cr. P. C. during his cross examination, it cannot be said that the witness turned hostile only in the cross examination. Be that as it may, even if the witness has resiled from his statement during his cross examination he cannot be allowed to be cross examined by the learned prosecutor for the CBI to fill in the lacuna by way of present application. No fruitful purpose will suffice even if PW1 Daljeet Singh is recalled for cross examination by the prosecutor. Rather his cross examination by Prosecutor shall further damage the prosecution case. In the application it is not disclosed as to on which points the Prosecutor seeks permission to cross-examine the witness. Even the application is vague. 4. Therefore I find no merits in the application and the same is dismissed. For remaining P. E. to come up on 24. 11. 2005. In the present petition also, at paragraph 5, the following averment has been made: 5. The complainant was examined in the court as PW1 on 21. 1. 04 and on 20. 04. 04 and he completely supported the prosecution case on the point of demand acceptance and recovery. Thereafter his evidence was adjourned for cross-examination which was recorded on 2. 9. 04 where he resiled from his examination in chief. Then the prosecution moved the application in the court u/s 311 Cr. P. C. to allow for reexamination with the support of Ruling AIR 1979 Supreme Court Page 569 that ambiguity has been caused. " ( 3 ) IT is apparent that the petitioner has repeated the same averment which was made before the learned Special judge that the witness PW1 turned hostile during cross-examination which was recorded on 02. 09. 2004 It is also re-iterated by the petitioner that the witness PW1, when he was examined on 21. 01. 2004 and 20. 04. 2004, had completely supported the prosecution case on the point of demand, acceptance and recovery. However, on an examination of the record, I find that PW1 was examined on 21. 01. 2004 and his further examination was deferred as the witness stated that he is perplexed and is nervous. Thereafter, PW1 (Daljeet Singh) was further examined on 20. 04. 04. 2004, had completely supported the prosecution case on the point of demand, acceptance and recovery. However, on an examination of the record, I find that PW1 was examined on 21. 01. 2004 and his further examination was deferred as the witness stated that he is perplexed and is nervous. Thereafter, PW1 (Daljeet Singh) was further examined on 20. 04. 2004 A copy of the statement recorded on that day is placed on record in the present petition at pages 23-28. At Page 27 of the paper book, the following is noted: "at this stage, Sr. PP for CBI requests to cross examine the witness as witness is resiling from his previous statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. Heard. Allowed. " ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the witness was cross examined by the senior Public Prosecutor for CBI and insofar as the cross examination by the accused was concerned, the same was deferred as the senior counsel was not available. Thereafter, the said witness PW1 was further cross examined on 02. 09. 2004 by the accused. The aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the statement made by the petitioner is not borne out by the record. It is not correct that the PW1 completely supported the prosecution case on 20. 04. 2004 inasmuch as on that date itself, the senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI stated that PW1 is resiling from his previous statement made u/s 161 Cr. P. C. and sought permission to cross-examine the witness. That request was allowed and the said witness was indeed cross examined by the senior Public Prosecutor for CBI on that very day. Therefore, the statement made in paragraph 5 of the revision petition is contrary to the record. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity with the impugned order and accordingly this revision petition is dismissed.