IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18578 of 2008 MADHU RAM SON OF LATE CHILAR RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHIRIDIH KAULACHAK, P.S. VIJAIPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ …. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 1.4.2011 The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the F.T.C.II, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.261 of 1997, by which an application u/s.231 Cr.P.C. for examination of non-charge sheeted witnesses has been allowed by the trial court. It has been submitted that the witnesses who were sought to be examined were neither named in the First Information Report nor their statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, they should not be permitted to give evidence. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 2009(3) P.L.J.R, page- 995, wherein after the informant was refused permission to record some witnesses, who had not been examined u/s.161 Cr.P.C. this Court had observed that only witnesses whose statements were recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. should be allowed. I am unable to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Since the admitted position in law is that it is the Trial Court alone, which is competent to appreciate as to whether the examination of the witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case as also that the - 2 - decision cited is not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of such, I find no merit in the application. The same is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )