IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.50343 OF 2008 1. SANJAY MAHTO, SON OF LATE BANKEY MAHTO 2. SURENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE BANKEY MAHTO 3. ARJUN PRASAD, SON OF LATE BANKEY MAHTO 4. KANTI DEVI, WIFE OF SURENDRA PRASAD 5. ASHA DEVI, WIFE OF ARJUN PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORA, POLICE STATION CHHABILAPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA ………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ****** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. D. K. SINHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. ANIL KR. SINGH NO. 1, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. ***************** 2 10/12/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners who are accused in this case. An application was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein that the father of the deceased should be examined as a prosecution witness in this case. The Court below has rejected the application by order dated 21.11.2008. It is prerogative of the prosecution to examine witnesses which the prosecution believes will support the case. The accused cannot make a prayer that a particular person should be examined on behalf of the prosecution. 2 It is always open to the accused persons to show to the Court that important witnesses who can prove the factum of the occurrence have not been examined and thereby raise a defence in their favour. In the present application, considering the facts, I find no illegality in the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 660 of 1998. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)