JUDGMENT S. Pujahari, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department. 2. This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir in CTR No.14 of 2015. 3. It appears that the prosecution, in this case, after examination and cross-examination of the P.W.1-Mukteswar Padhan, has filed a petition under section 311 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Court below indicating therein that since a new story has been introduced, the said witness may be recalled for further re-examination, which has since been allowed vide the order impugned. 4. I have perused the statement of the aforesaid witness recorded by the Trial Court. It appears that during the course of cross-examination, the defence counsel brought out certain thing from the petitioner. Prosecution, however, made prayer for re-examination on the ground that since the said witness has introduce a new story, he is required to be re-examined. 5. Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell, reported in 1999 SCC (Criminal) 1062 wherein it has been held that the interest of justice demands that things should be clear before the Court to assist it to meet the ends of justice and no party in a trial can before closed from correcting errors and the Court should be magnanimous in permitting to rectify Such mistake allowed the prayer made by the P.P. 6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the same on the ground that since from the evidence on record nothing is there to indicate that the victim has given a go by to the case of the prosecution story and resile from the statement which he has made during the examination-in-chief and shown a hostility to the prosecution, as because some material evidence was brought out during cross-examination, affecting the prosecution case, the Trial Court could not have placing reliance on the said decision allowed the prayer of the prosecution. The same would make the statutory right given to the accused to demolish the credibility of an untruthful witness by cross-examine him to prove his innocence, redundant. The same would make the statutory right given to the accused to demolish the credibility of an untruthful witness by cross-examine him to prove his innocence, redundant. The Trial Court without taking note of the aforesaid fact having allowed the prayer made, the same as such is liable to be quashed as otherwise the same shall result in prejudice to the defence of the accused. 7. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that since from the evidence adduced on record, it appears that the witness very cunningly what stated in the examination-in-chief supporting the prosecution demolish the same in the cross-examination, by agreeing with a story introduced by the defence, the prayer made under Section 311, Cr.P.C., 1973 has rightly been allowed by the Court. Such a right being available to the prosecution, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. 8. The mandate of law is the examination-in-chief and cross-examination are required to be confined to the relevant fact, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the fact which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. 9. In the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1977 SC 170 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that merely because a witness in an unguarded moment speaks the truth which may not suit the prosecution or which may be favourable to the accused, the discretion to allow the party to cross-examine itself cannot be allowed. 10. Taking note of the said law laid down this Court in the case of Dolagovinda Pradhan and Others vs. State of Odisha and Bharat Mulia, reported in (2018) 71 OCR - 469 , this Court has held that before a Court exercises discretion in declaring a witness hostile, there must be some material to show that the witness has gone back on the earlier statement or is not speaking the truth or has exhibited an element of hostility or changed side and transferred his loyalty to the adversary. The Court before permitting the party calling the witness to cross-examine must scan and weight the circumstances properly and should not exercise its discretion in a casual or routine manner. 11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, when the case in hand is addressed, it appears that in the cross-examination, when the witness deposed about the conversion between him and the R.1. 11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, when the case in hand is addressed, it appears that in the cross-examination, when the witness deposed about the conversion between him and the R.1. at the time of handing over the tainted money, the same has been considered by the prosecution to be adverse to their interest and as such, the petition under Section 311,-Cr.P.C. was filed to recall that witness and permit the prosecution to cross-examine him as he resales from the prosecution case. As because the witness has not deposed in the manner as desired by the prosecution or the same is not in conformity with his evidence in examination-in-chief, the witness cannot be stated to be as hostile one and he has expressed his loyalty to the defence. Unless from the material available on record, the Court is of the definite opinion that this witness though during the examination-inchief supported the case of the prosecution, but on cross-examination, he has completely given go by to the prosecution case and change his loyalty, the Court should be loathe according permission to the prosecution for cross-examination of such witness by the prosecution, otherwise the same would make the stautory right available to the accused for cross-examination to test the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution witness made in examination-in-chief against him an otiose and redundant one. 12. In the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey (supra), it has also been held that when a witness in an unguarded moment speaks the truth, the same cannot be taken to be showing an adversal to the party from whom it is examined and as such, he cannot be said witness hostile to the party, who examined such witness. 13. In such premises, the power under Section 311, Cr.P.C., 1973 though plenary one, available to the Court and exercising the same, the witness already discharged can be recalled for re-examination/further cross-examination by the defence and party examining him on petition for re-examination/cross-examination with the permission under Section 154 of the Evidence Act to arrive at the truth, but the Court should be loathe in exercising such power unless there is compelling/ justifiable reasons for the same. 14. 14. Since in this case, from the evidence of the decoy, it appears to this Court that exists no such circumstance, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the prosecution allowed by the Trial Court is without any jurisdiction. 15. Therefore, the impugned order passed cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and impugned order is quashed.