utilized that opportunity reasonably well. The discrepancy seen in the various dates he made various complaints notwithstanding. I r.\ This leads me to whether the question put across to PWl in reexamination is appropriate or not. The provision of the Evidence Act is clear. Were there matters referred to in cross examination of PWl which need explanation so as to warrant the prosecution to further cross examine pwl upon that issue necessitated? It is my candid view that there was none. Absolutely none. Besides, the Evidence Act uses the word "may" as the operative word. In other words, it is not mandatory that the adverse party must re-examine. My view is hinged on the fact that the document (ie Exh "B") was made by PWl himself. It is not a new document to him. In his evidence in chief the following dialogue ensued between the prosecutor and PWl. Q. Take your mind back to 20 th Feb. 2009 do you remember that date? Ans. Yes I remember Q. Did anything happen between you and the defendant on the same date? Ans. Yes something happened Q. Narrate with precision what happened on that date 14 I P ,i b r