1. Special leave granted

2. In the present case the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, two of whom were police witnesses, one was the landlady who turned hostile and PW 1 was the only independent witness whose evidence has been acted upon. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer. It appears that the house was searched on March 5, 1986 at about 9.00 a.m. It was suggested in the cross-examination of PW 1 that he was working as a Home Guard and was not present at the time of search. In support of this suggestion, a letter purported to have been written by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mapusa, Goa dated January 23, 1990 was relied upon to show that this witness was actually detailed for traffic duty at Colvale on March 5, 1986 from 8.00 to 12.30 hrs. Another document dated May 10, 1988 was produced to show that PW 1 was enrolled as a Home Guard volunteer on January 27, 1986 and he was on traffic duty at Mapusa on March 5, 1986. These two document were of vital importance to determine whether PW 1 was telling the truth when he said that he was with the raiding party at 9.00 a.m. on March 5, 1986. We think that the High Court should have recalled the witness and permitted the accused appellant to cross-examine him and, if necessary, could have examined the signatories of the two documents as court witness to ascertain the truth and veracity of the statement made by PW 1. If PW 1 was not telling the truth, the High Court would have been required to consider the impact thereof on the prosecution case. In para 9 of the judgment the High Court has refused to look into the correspondence on the ground that PW 1 was thoroughly cross-examined. If the appellant-accused came into possession of a document which would impeach the veracity of the evidence of PW 1 then it was incumbent on the High Court to give him an opportunity to show that PW 1 was not telling the truth. We feel that these documents were relevant and an opportunity should have been allowed to impeach the veracity of PW 1. On this short ground, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law after recalling the witness and permitting the appellant accused to cross-examine him and if necessary, to examine the author of the documents relied on.