examination , he cannot withdraw his evidence in re examinatio n. Counsel cited Odu'a Invest C. Ltd .V. Talabi (1991) 1 NWLR (part 107) 761@ 767 . That a party is not allowed to reopen his case and have a second bite at the cherry . He cites Willoghby .V. Inter. Merchant Bank Ltd (1987) Sc 137 @ 163; Amobi .v . Amobi & Ors (1996) 8 NWLR (part 469) 638; Adike .V . Obiareri (2002) 18 WR n 24@ 58; S. 129 (3) (6) Evidence Act . Counsel finally urges the court to dismiss the appeal. Section 215 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides as follows : "The re -exam in at ion shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in t he cross exa mi nation and if a new matter is, by perm iss ion of t he co urt, int roduced in re -examination the adverse party may furt her cross exam in e upon the matter." \ c\Q~/vs ?}W[t , c . The question is : whether the question put across to PWl by the appellant' s counsel was geared towards explaining his oral evidence elicited in cross examination viz-a-vis the date written on Exhibit B (The petition to the Commissioner for Police) . The second point is : whether the date Exhibit B was written is material and crucial to the determination of the case . Put differently is exhibit B the very plank or foundation upon which the criminal charge was built . 12l rdi~ t· - ✓~