JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By present application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure sole accused facing a trial for the charge of having committed an offence under Sections 7, 13, (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Special Case No. 12 of 2003 of Court of Special Judge at Chandrapur has thrown a challenge to order dated 20.11.2008 allowing an application at Exh.21 preferred by prosecution during the midst of cross-examination of PW1 Wasudeo Rohne to cross-examine the said witness. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order. 4. An apparent glance at the order impugned in the application clearly supports the grievance made by learned counsel for the applicant of no reasons being given for allowing the said application abruptly. The learned APP also conceding the said aspect has expressed inability for justifying non-giving of the reasons for the order passed. 5. Now reference to the decision in a case of Prasad .vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 174 and particularly the observations referred therein from a decision in case of Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. .vs. Crabtree -1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) to the effect: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” squarely reveals the need for giving the reasons while administration of a justice of at least for adjudication of significant issues arisen during the course of a trial. 6. On the aforesaid backdrop now considering controversy involved in application at Exh.21 preferred by the prosecution being related to right of the prosecution to cross-examine their own witness is definitely a significant aspect as same is not akin to right conferred upon the prosecution at a trial i.e. the prosecution being entitled to examine or reexamine their own witness for establishing the prosecution case as contemplated under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though it is true that though prosecution is not altogether barred from putting the questions in the nature of cross-examination to their own witness under special contingencies as envisaged by Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though it is true that though prosecution is not altogether barred from putting the questions in the nature of cross-examination to their own witness under special contingencies as envisaged by Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. Still existence of such a case is a question required to be carefully decided or at least not casually. 7. By the application at Exh.21 prosecution having furthermore sought the permission of an exceptional nature and the said prayer being objected by the petitioner for the various reasons recorded in the say , the question of grant or otherwise of such a permission was warranted to be decided by the trial Court by giving the reasons for enabling parties at a trial to understand the reasons for which such a decision was arrived by the Court apart from the same itself denoting application of mind and thus indicating fundamental fairness being maintained at a trial as required by the cardinal principles governing the criminal trial. Needless to add that decision upon such an application was likely to have crucial bearing upon further voyage of a trial in a quests of a truth regarding the allegations of commission of serious offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid the non-reasoned order passed by the trial Court which otherwise also demonstrates casual approach cannot be sustained. Hence the same is hereby quashed and set aside and for serving ends of justice the trial Court is hereby directed to decide afresh the said prosecution application at Exh.21 in accordance with the law by passing a speaking order and of course after giving due opportunity to parties at a trial to place respective stands regarding controversy arisen. 9. Rule made absolute in the above terms.