IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45304 of 2007 Yogendra Prasad Rai @ Ygendra Rai @ Nand Lal Prasad Rai, son of late Nand Lal Prasad, resident of village- Attah, P. S.- Marhaurah, District- Saran. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Lal Bahadur @ Shastrijee, son of not known, the then Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Branch- Marhaurah, P. S.- Marhaurah, District- Saran at present resides at Brahmpur Pool, Adarsh Colony, East of Ramjanam Rai’s house, P. O.- Chapra, H. O.- P. S. Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. 3. Hamid Khan, son of not known, the then Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Lower Division Marhaurah, P. S.- Marhaurah, District Saran at present resides at Brahmpur, P. O.- Chapra H. O. P. S. Bhagawan Bazar, District- Saran. .. Opposite parties. ----------- 5. 29.03.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner, informant in a police case has come out with a prayer of an opportunity to lead evidence with regard to certain documents. In a police case such prayer in fact ought to have been made by the State but then if the State has not chosen to assail the impugned order, this Court would consider the prayer of the informant who intends to support the prosecution case. Coming to the merits of this case, this court would find that the court below was justified in rejecting the vague prayer in terms of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a matter of fact, this aspect has also gone into by the revisional court at great length. 2 However, considering the interest of justice and that fact that the document in question which was sought to be proved by invoking the provision of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was already mentioned in the complaint petition, this Court would direct the trial court to fix one firm date on which the prosecution shall be given opportunity to complete its evidence. It goes without saying that if the prosecution would examine any witness for proving the document in question, the accused-opposite party will definitely have a right of cross-examination. It is made clear that if on that day the prosecution does not complete the evidence, the trial court would proceed further and deliver its judgment after completion of arguments without giving any further opportunity to the prosecution. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)