IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50437 of 2007 BISHWANATH DUBEY, S/o Late Ramautar Dubey, R/o Batraulia, P.S. Paroo, District – Muzaffarpur ………. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dhaneshwar Dubey, S/o late Rajdhari Dubey, R/o Batraulia, P.S. Paroo, District – Muzaffarpur ….. Opp. Parties ----------- 2 28.1.2009 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.A.Shamsi, the learned counsel for O.P .No. 2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P .for the State. Through this application the petitioner who is one of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1992 arising out of Paru P.S. Case No. 184 of 1991 has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.9.2007, whereby Sri B.K.Verma, Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Muzaffarpur, has rejected his prayer for directions to be issued to the prosecution to examine Manju Devi, wife of the deceased, under section 311 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that Manju Devi figures as one of the charge sheet witnesses and it was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine her as she happens to be the wife of the deceased. The learned Presiding Judge while rejecting the prayer opined that if evidence of Manju Devi is necessary for defence, then they are at liberty to examine her as their witness at proper stage. The prerogative of examining charge sheet witnesses remains absolutely within the domain of the rights of the prosecutor to examine such witnesses as he feels inclined to examine and not - 2 - to act on the dictates of the defence as to which charge sheet witness should or should not be examined. In that view of the matter I find no apparent illegality, impropriety or irregular in the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Muzaffarpur. While upholding the same I dismiss this application as being without merit. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)