JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sarkar, learned PP appearing for the State. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the order dated 03.01.2018 delivered in ST(T-1) 45 of 2014 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has been challenged. By the said order dated 03.01.2018 what has been observed and relevant for this case is as follows: “On 10.11.17 in course of cross examination of First IO Smt. Madhavi Das (PW.12), this court restrained the defence to put a question to the IO in reference to the statement of a particular witness recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. Accordingly, defence filed a petition under section 137 r/w section 145 of Evidence Act to allow cross examination of PW.12 Madhavi Das with reference to the 161 Cr.PC statements recorded by her during investigation. On such petition the further cross examination was adjourned and subsequently, both parties were heard on the above petition. In course of hearing Ld. Counsel Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik appearing for the accused referred several authorities of Apex Court as well as High Courts including the High Court of Tripura and pointed out that defence has right to cross examine the IO on any question in reference to the previous statement of a particular witness which she reduced into writing.” 3. It transpires from the said order dated 03.01.2018 that the Addl. PP having appeared for the State has opposed any latitude by contending that no question can be put to the Investigating Officer in reference to the previous statement of any witness unless the attention of that particular witness was drawn to it, during his or her examination in the court affording opportunity to the witness to explain about any contradiction or omission in his evidence. In this regard, proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. has been referred to further contend that there is no scope for the defence to contradict the witness without taking the procedure as provided by Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Addl. In this regard, proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. has been referred to further contend that there is no scope for the defence to contradict the witness without taking the procedure as provided by Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Addl. PP appearing for the State has repeated that the statement of a particular witness recorded during the examination of that witness where his or her attention was not drawn for purpose of underpinning contradiction and omission, the subsequent witness including the Investigating Officer cannot be asked any question over or related to that statement. After having referred to Tahsildar Singh vs. State of UP: AIR 1959 SC 1021 the defence counsel contended that if it was intended to underpin contradiction vis-à-vis the previous statement reduced in the writing, attention of the witness shall before the contradiction can be proved be drawn to those parts of it, which are to be used for purpose of contradicting him. Proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. provides right to the accused to make use of such statement to contradict a witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It would be violence to the language of that proviso if the said statement be allowed to be used for the purpose of cross examining any other witness within the meaning of the first part of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court below has observed that the principle as laid down by Tahsildar Singh (supra) cannot help the position as held by the defence counsel. A number of cases has been referred by the defence counsel but the trial court did not agree that those decisions support that position as held by the defence counsel and finally, it has been observed that there is no justified ground for the defence to file the petition for allowing them to cross-examine the said witness (Investigating Officer) on whether one particular witness had made a statement to him or not. The trial court in this context has further observed as follows: “In the said judgment also Hon’ble High Court in para 15 observed that – What follows from the above discussion is that the counsel for the prosecution or the defence, as the case may be, for the purpose of contradicting a witness with his previous statement, is required to bring that portion of the statement, which is sought to be contradicted, to the notice of the witness, inviting his response to such previous statement. If he does not admit, the practice, generally followed, is to admit it subject to proof thereof by the Investigating Officer. If the Investigating Officer, relying on the case diary, asserts that the witness, in question did make the statement (which is contradictory to the statement made in the court on oath), the court shall, then, mark the same as an exhibit. Similarly, if an omission, on the part of a prosecution witness, is sought to be proved, then, the defence or the prosecution, as the case may be, may suggest to the concerned witness that he did not make, at the time of giving statement before the Investigating Officer, any such statement, which he has made in the Court. Such suggestion, if denied by the witness concerned, is to be proved by asking the Investigating Officer, during his examination, as a witness to the effect as to whether the witness concerned had made such a statement before him or not. If the Investigating Officer relying on the case diary, answers in the negative, then, the statement made by the witness, on oath, in the court, can be treated as omission. From the aforesaid authorities of law no where it is found that a particular fact can be brought in the evidence from the mouth of IO during his/her cross examination in reference to a previous statement of particular witness who remained silent on such fact during his/her examination and no attention was drawn on such fact. In other way, a particular fact not stated by a witness in his/her evidence cannot be established by making out the same from the mouth of IO unless the said witness was provided an opportunity to explain by drawing his/her attention with previous statement given to IO.” [Emphasis added] 4. Mr. In other way, a particular fact not stated by a witness in his/her evidence cannot be established by making out the same from the mouth of IO unless the said witness was provided an opportunity to explain by drawing his/her attention with previous statement given to IO.” [Emphasis added] 4. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the latitude of the cross examination is quite extensive subject to the relevancy test and it cannot be restricted to only contradiction or omission. In this regard he has referred to a decision of this court in Rajib Debnath vs. State of Tripura and Anr. (Judgment and order dated 11.08.2015) in Crl. Petn. No.32 of 2015 where it has been observed that: “Cross-examination of a witness is not necessarily limited to his examination-in-chief. The witness may be cross-examined on other aspects also to challenge the veracity and trustworthiness of the witness. The cross-examination, however, has to be relevant. Irrelevant questions in cross-examination can be rejected but in a criminal case, the accused not only has a right to cross-examine the witness but has a right during cross-examination to surprise the witness by drawing his attention to certain documents which are not on record.” 5. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that in Gautam Das and Anr. Vs. State of Tripura reported in 2011 (6) GLR 671 the Gauhati High Court has dwelled upon how to record the contradiction and omission and how the Investigating Officer would be cross-examined under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 6. Mr. Sarkar, learned PP appearing for the State has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He has referred to the question that was put by the defence counsel to the said witness (Smt. Madhavi Das), one of the Investigating Officers of the case (PW-12), which reads as under: “Do you agree as per statement recorded by you, Uma Saha came to know about the existence of wife and daughter of Dulal Saha on 27.08.2006? The defence counsel was prevented by the court to put such question on the solitary ground that during the examination of Uma Saha, her attention was not drawn to that part of the statement made to the police officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. The defence counsel was prevented by the court to put such question on the solitary ground that during the examination of Uma Saha, her attention was not drawn to that part of the statement made to the police officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Sarkar, learned PP has contended that without drawing attention of the witness concerned to his or her statement as recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer cannot be questioned in order to prove contradiction. 7. The concept of cross-examination of witnesses emanates fundamentally from two provisions of the Evidence Act viz. Section 137 which provides the cross examination of a witness who has been examined by the adverse party in the examination-in-chief is a matter of right and Section 145 provides cross-examination as to the ‘previous statement in writing’. A witness may be cross examined on his or her previous statement reduced in writing. If it is intended to contradict him or her by the said statement in writing, his attention shall before the writing can be proved be called to those parts which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him or her. For purpose of criminal trial ordinarily Section 145 of the Evidence Act comes into play through the proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. which provides as follows: “162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence. For purpose of criminal trial ordinarily Section 145 of the Evidence Act comes into play through the proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. which provides as follows: “162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence. (1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made: Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re- examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross- examination. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act. Explanation.- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub- section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.” 8. Proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. clearly provides that when any witness is called by the prosecution in the inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing previously, any part of his statement may be used by the accused and with the permission of the court by the prosecution to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the reexamination of such witnesses but for purpose of only explaining any matter referred to in his or her cross examination. This proviso to Section 145 has charted out a special form of cross examination vis-à-vis the statement which has been reduced into writing which can be used for purpose of recording contradiction and omission as explained below the sub-section 2 of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 9. The defence gets right to cross examination from two statutory sources as stated above and nature of the cross-examination under Section 137 or under Section 145 of the Evidence Act are quite distinct. If Section 137 of the Evidence Act, so far the cross-examination is concerned, is the genus, Section 145 of the Evidence Act is the specis dealing with the specific form of cross-examination. The general right as provided under Section 137 is quite extensive and it provides latitude to travel beyond the limited right of cross-examination or the right to cross-examination on a particular manner as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The cross-examination under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act so far the criminal trial is concerned is closely related to proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 10. The cross-examination is an invaluable right for the defence. It is an art. It would help the court to assess the probative value of the evidence. The law makers have used the word ‘adverse party’ insofar as the question of cross examination is concerned. Thus, the right to cross-examine a witness was only given to the party having adverse interest in the matter. The rule in the common law is that no evidence shall be admitted unless the adverse party has had liberty to cross examine. The doctrine requires test of testimonial statements by cross-examination. The doctrine is perfectly settled. It is merely the opportunity to test. The rule in the common law is that no evidence shall be admitted unless the adverse party has had liberty to cross examine. The doctrine requires test of testimonial statements by cross-examination. The doctrine is perfectly settled. It is merely the opportunity to test. But there is a perennial debate what would be the extent of the cross-examination or in other words its latitude. Reasonable latitude in the cross-examination is in-built in the concept itself. It need not be confined to the facts elicited in examination in chief or strictly to the relevant fact. The accused are entitled to cross examine in order to elicit materials in support of their defence from the prosecution witnesses. The questions adjudged not relevant in examination in chief, may be relevant in the cross examination. The cross examining counsel may undertake to show at some subsequent stage that the question apparently irrelevant was really relevant. Section 138 provides that both the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination should be related to ‘relevant fact’. The relevant fact in the cross-examination should necessarily carry a wider meaning in comparison when it is so read with the examination-in-chief. For instance, facts though otherwise irrelevant may involve questions affecting the credit of a witness and such questions are permissible in the cross-examination, but the question which is manifestly irrelevant or the question not intended to contradict or qualify the statement in examination-in-chief or which does not impeach the credit of a witness is not ordinarily allowed in the cross-examination. 11. The role which confines evidence to the points of issue, having excluded all proof of such collateral facts affords reasonable inference with respect to the principal matters and dispute, is not usually applied in the cross examination in the same strictness as it so does in examination-in-chief. Wide latitude of interrogation is sometimes permitted when from the temper or conduct of the witness, or from other circumstances such course seems essential to the discovery of truth or where the cross examiner will undertake to show, at some subsequent stage of the trial, by other evidence, the relevancy of the question put. It is difficult to lay down or rather to apply the precise general rules. Still a few subsidiary rules have been clearly established and they tend to define with tolerable certainty the limit within which questions in the cross examination should be confined. It is difficult to lay down or rather to apply the precise general rules. Still a few subsidiary rules have been clearly established and they tend to define with tolerable certainty the limit within which questions in the cross examination should be confined. First, the Judge may in all cases exercise the discretion to disallow the question which may not be relevant to any matter. Second, the answer of the witness put to the cross examination respecting any fact irrelevant to the issue with exception to an answer to question whether the witness has been convicted of the felony or misdemeanor is conclusive and the evidence cannot be rolled on to the other side to show that the answer is untrue; neither can an irrelevant question be put to a witness on cross examination for purpose of impeaching his credit by contradicting him. Third, in order to impeach the character of the witness, he may always be asked on cross examination, even though he is not worthy, and compelled to answer the question with regard to the alleged crime or improper conduct on his or her part. Fourth, with respect to all questions put to a witness on cross examination for purpose of directly testing his credit, it may be broadly laid down that if the question relates to the relevant facts, the answer may be contradicted by the independent evidence. The rule is well settled that a witness cannot be contradicted on matters not relevant to the issue and he cannot be interrogated on irrelevant matters merely for the purpose of contradicting him by ‘the other evidence’. If the questions relating to such irrelevant matters are answered, there can be no contradiction. 12. From the discussion as made above, it outlines the essentiality of the cross examination and its limit. For purpose of bringing out the contradiction by means of the previous statement so recorded, may be under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. extends a definite reference how to record such contradiction or for that matter the omission and the process is provided under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. That provision lay a method for recording the contradiction or omission vis-à-vis the previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. But when the cross examination in general is concerned, that cannot be limited by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. A bare reading of Section 145 of the Evidence Act is sufficient to indicate to that aspect. The question that was put to the police officer, according to this court, is not confined within the limit of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The said question is well covered by the latitude as provided under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act for purpose of cross examining the witness or the Investigating Officer. 13. This court has examined the very question that was put to the Investigating Officer, PW-12 and according to this court such question can be put to the Investigating Officer to test the rectitude or the process of the investigation and the purpose of putting any question in the cross examination cannot always be guided by any strict rule. Even the relevancy may not be decided in that stage. Even in the cross examination, the leading question can be asked unhindered to the witness but cannot be asked in the examination in chief or re-examination, if objected by the adverse party and except without permission of the court. Only in respect of the undisputed part or for harmless introduction leading question can be put in the examination-in-chief. Section 43 has given a wide latitude to put the leading questions in the cross examination. Therefore, when the statute has created a right to cross examination as a measure of the natural right of defence for unveiling the truth, its latitude can only be decided by the court under the test of relevance on culmination but the court shall not mess up the ambit and extent of two distinct provisions of Sections 137 and 145 of the Evidence Act. There purposes are to be recognized and on such recognition only the adverse party can be restricted on the ground of relevance. In the case in hand, the trial court has committed a serious error and may be for the reason that the defence has projected their analogy indistinctly. The question that the defence had projected would come under Section 137 of the Evidence Act and as the question was not under Section 145 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as there is no reference to the previous statement of any witness having brought to the notice of the said witness the trial court ought to have permitted the said question to be asked. The cross examination is an art how the question to be put to the witness and its success depends on the intelligence and skill of the defence counsel and the question itself would determine whether such question can be restricted or not. 14. Having observed thus, the impugned order is interfered with. The trial court is directed to allow the defence to put ‘relevant questions’ including the question that has barred to PW-12 but at the same time the defence shall also be very careful about the purpose. The defence shall not vex the proceeding. They shall not trivialized the process, shall they be disrespectful to the authority of the court which has solemn duty to keep the stream within the bounds of relevancy. Having observed thus, this petition is allowed and disposed of.