rural candidates, thereby fabricated invoices and receipts and released a sum of Rs.28,64,375/- to A3 to A7 and thus caused a wrongful loss to Government of India. During trial, several witnesses examined and lastly PW-116 examined and through him Ex.P11/Enquiry Report marked which is running to more than 100 pages. A1 and A2 independently cross examined the witnesses at length and the other accused namely, A3 to A7 reported that they are adopting the cross examination of A1 and A2. During the cross examination, the report was put to the witnesses and to the several part of the report, attention was drawn and also with regard to the role played by other witnesses, namely, Lakshmi, Kalabalaji, Kaliyaperumal, Dr.Girish and Dr.Kulanthairajan and others. During cross examination, for some questions, the witnesses though answered positively, had not given details with regard to the custody of the files and author of the report, about the scheme and with regard to motive of Iyyangar, the then Director and further about the Registrar of the institution. As regards these aspects, there is some ambiguity. The oral evidence is not in conformity with the report and other documents, hence ambiguity arose. For these reasons, the witness ought to be re-examined for the purpose of clarification. It would be only for betterment and in the interest of justice, so that there is no ambiguity remains and no advantage or disadvantage is caused either to the prosecution or to the accused. Further, re-examining is permissible under the Evidence Act.
