Is cbi pp correct?

Even in my knowledge, there is nothing wrong if PP examines the investigation officer before other offices.

Sorry, I mistakenly stated "other offices" in my reply.

I hereby rectify that as "other witnesses"

Yes he can examine the IO

To Mr Nair: 

It will be incorrect to say that there is nothing wrong? It is absolutely wrong to examine IO before all other witnesses have been examined. Do not forget that it is the IO who is the author of the charge sheet. He has written the charge sheet after satisfying himself that the accused is liable to face the trial. It is his satisfaction which is under scrutiny in a Criminal trial. Discrepant Information coming to knowledge during the course of examination of witnesses has to be put to the IO to see what is his version of the discrepancy. If witnesses are examined subsequently, the IO cannot be confronted with the revelations obtained from witnesses. That puts the cart before the horse.

I was expecting if there was any judgement to support either side whether IO can or cannot be examined before completing all other witnesses.

To Mr Rajeev(rajoo). Of course PP can examine IO before everybody else. But there is a well placed practice which fully supports the nature of fairness of the trial to examine IO at the end only.  The fairness of the trial can be affected adversely if IO is examined beforehand, and in the process the PP gets to know what all questions asked in which fashion shall elicit favourbale (not necessary truthful) answer. This runs contrary to principle of justice.

Some practice come to carry the force of law. There is no legal provision that everyone present in the court should rise when the judge enters. But it is followed like an inviolable law.

However, my purpose was to elicit if there is any judicial decision on the subject?

In cases where the complainant is the State, it is the IO who is representing the state. Thus, there is nothing wrong in examining the IO before any other witnesses. The witness can be recalled if it is felt necessary.

To - Mr Nair

This analogy is not correct. If IO is to be equated with a private complainant, he should be examined first of all. A charge sheet filed under section 173 has a statutory status.  Once it is filed, it is the complete descripttion of the case which then has to be borne out by evidence and not by any personal explanation. Any amount of personal explanation by IO shall not serve unless it is proved by evidence. Satisfaction of IO has no meaning - it is under scrutinty and challenge in every trial.  He has to satisfy by evidence that what he concluded is natural, logical, and rational.

Examination of the IO at the end is only to give him hearing on discrepancies found in the evidence. If there are no discrepancies his cross will be nil. In any event, if he is not even examined, it does not vitiate the tria. However intermittent appearance of the IO does vitiate the trial. It forces the accused to reveal his defence qua the entire case, thus prejudicing his defence.

Recall of a witness is a luxury. In any event it isnot the right of the parties. It is the discretion of the judge. Trials take notoriously long in this country. Then why choose such processes [like recall] which would further lengthen the trial.

In criminal trial it is  the prerogative right of  PP to lay down his own line of examination of witnesses, why are you worry about his responsibility. Let the PP make or unmake his own case.