JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) PW1 Ms. Mamta, Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Roorkee, was in the witness box before the trial court. Her examination-in-chief was recorded. She was also cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused at length. The same could not be concluded on 17.02.2014. PW1 again came to the Court on 04.03.2014. When learned defence counsel asked a question, learned counsel for CBI objected. The objection was sustained. Thereafter, the same question was repeated in the cross-examination, and the permission to ask the same was again denied by learned Presiding Officer. At that stage, learned defence counsel made a request that he would move an application. The case was again taken up in the post lunch session. PW1 was not further cross-examined on behalf of the accused and, therefore, learned trial court closed the evidence of PW1 and fixed the next date for remaining prosecution evidence. 2. Aggrieved against such an order dated 04.03.2014 of the trial court, present criminal revision was filed. 3. It may be mentioned here at the very outset that once a question is denied by the Presiding Officer, repetition of the same question again to the same prosecution witness by learned defence counsel, was not proper. It’s a different matter that the question thus asked by learned defence counsel in the instant case was a relevant question. 4. During the course of hearing of present criminal revision, this Court requested learned counsel for the revisionist to write the questions, which he wants to ask to PW1, in a plain paper, show the same to learned counsel for CBI and then come back to the court in the post-lunch session. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted eight questions to this Court. Said questions are as under: (1) Whether Mukeem Ahmad is the registered contractor of the Cantonment Board? (2) Whether any tender of M/s Bharat Trading Company, Lal Kurti, Roorkee was accepted for high mast stand street light in Cantonment Board, Roorkee? (3) Whether the work order is given only after the acceptance of tender? (4) Whether the work order is prepared by the Officer on the instructions of Chief Executive Officer? (5) Whether file relating to the tender of M/s Bharat Trading Company was being dealt with by Mr. N.K. Gupta, Sanitary Superintendent? (6) Whether information regarding acceptance of tender is given to the persons, who filed tenders? (4) Whether the work order is prepared by the Officer on the instructions of Chief Executive Officer? (5) Whether file relating to the tender of M/s Bharat Trading Company was being dealt with by Mr. N.K. Gupta, Sanitary Superintendent? (6) Whether information regarding acceptance of tender is given to the persons, who filed tenders? (7) Whether an agreement is executed after the tender is accepted? (8) Whether M/s S.K. Bhatnagar is the Civil Engineer? 5. Learned counsel for the accused (revisionist herein) undertook before this Court that he would ask only those eight questions to PW1, if granted opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. 6. Any accused should be granted fair opportunity to cross-examine any witness, provided the questions being asked to such witness are relevant to the facts of the case. If an opportunity to cross-examine any witness is denied and the evidence is closed during midway, the same will amount to denial of fair hearing. PW1 may not be subjected to unnecessary, lengthy and irrelevant cross-examination, therefore an attempt is made by this Court to reduce the questions in writing, which questions were supplied by learned counsel for the revisionist. 7. This Court is of the opinion that an Executive Officer of the Board is expected to reply the aforesaid questions, as the same relate to day-to-day working of the Board and the same must be in the knowledge of the Executive Officer. These questions cannot be said to be irrelevant either. This exercise was done by this Court in order to resolve the controversy within the permissible limits of chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. Criminal revision is allowed in the exceptional circumstances of the case. The accused-revisionist is granted liberty to ask the aforesaid eight questions to PW1 in her cross-examination on the next date of hearing before the trial court. It is hoped and expected that learned counsel for the accused revisionist shall confine his remaining cross-examination to eight questions, which have been enumerated here-in-above. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for compliance.