B. L. LOOMBA, J. The petitioners in this writ petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are facing their trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1985, State v. Brij Lal and others in the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Barabanki. The main victim of the crime was Swami Dayal, Advocate of Barabanki. Three other persons, namely, Deoki Nandan Pandey, Mata Prasad and Ram Tirath were said to have received injuries in this occurrence. Besides these three injured, seven more persons were named in the first infor mation report as eye- witnesses. The prosecution examined one injured, namely, Deoki Nandan Pandey and another eye- witness, namely, Maharaj Bali and closed its evidence. 2. The grievance of the accused petitioners, it appears, was that the prosecution intentionally and without any justifiable reason withheld from being examined two injured persons at the trial and the same being material witnesses ought to hive been examined. The Public Prosecutor, it appears, sought discharge of the named witnesses en the ground of their having been won over by the accused persons. This application was allowed and the other named witnesses were discharged. The accused persons then moved application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the prayer that the two injured witnesses, namely, Ram Tirath and Mata Prasad may be examined by the Court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as Conrt witnesses. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order, dated 5- 1-1988 and it is this order which is under challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order, dated 5- 1-1988 and it is this order which is under challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The grounds raised are that Mahraj Bali being the father of the deceased is a highly interested person and that Deoki Nandan has a long association with the family of the complainant, Mahraj Bali and as such only two highly interested persons were examined by the prosecution while independent available witnesses were withheld with oblique motives and at least the two injured witnesses whose presence at the time of occurrence was not in doubt, being material witnesses, ought to have been examined by the Court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which runs as follows: "power to summon material witness, or examine person present.-Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners laying emphasis on the word shall in the second part of the said section, submit that it was obligatory on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have summoned the two injured witnesses because the evidence of these witnesses ex-fade would be essential to the just decision of the case. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Jude indciates that the prayer of the accused persons was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the person who had received grievous injured has already been examined and that injured Mata Prasad complained of pain only while the third injured person, namely, Ram Tirath had sustained only one simple abraded contusion and that these two injured persons had been working in the nearby fields and had actually arrived at the last stage of the incident and being residents of the village of the accused persons, they had been won over by the accused. From the side of the accused petitioners it is denied that these two injured persons had, in any way, been won over by the accused. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears, being influenced by the submissions raised by the Public Prosecutor observed that the defence evidence having not yet started, it would be open to the accused persons to examine the two injured persons in defence if so desired. It was observed lastly in the order that "i do not think it just and proper to summon them as Court witnesses at the instance of the defence at this stage (emphasis supplied ). 7. As is mentioned above, the burden of the argument of the petitioners learned counsel is that it was necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to have considered the question whether the evidence of the two injured persons was essential for the just decision of the case and in case his conclusion was that their testimony was essential for the just decision of the case it was obligatory on his part to have summoned and have examined them as court witnesses. In support of his submission reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the following decision: (1) Narain and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 484 . The proposition of law dealt with was as to the duty of the prosecution to produce material witness and the effect of non-production of such witness. It was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that the test is whether he is essential to unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based and whether a witness is so essential or not would depend on whether he could speak to any part of the prosecution case or whether the evidence led disclosed that he was so situated that he would have been able to give evideace of the facts on which the prosecution relied, it was further added that it is not that the prosecution is bound to call all witnesses who may have seen the occurrence and duplicate the evidence. Apart from this the prosecution should call all material witnesses. (2) Darya Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, 1964 SCJ 319. It was held that the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court in reaching a proper conclusion in regard to the case which is brought before it for trial. Apart from this the prosecution should call all material witnesses. (2) Darya Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, 1964 SCJ 319. It was held that the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court in reaching a proper conclusion in regard to the case which is brought before it for trial. It is, no doubt open to the prosecutor not to examine witnesses, who, in his opinion have not witnessed the incident, but normally he ought to examine all the eye-witnesses in support of his case. It was also added that if there are a large number of persons who had witnessed the incident, it would be open to the prosecutor to make a selection but the selection must be made fairly and honestly and not with a view to suppress inconvenient witnesses from the witness-box. If on the trial it is shown that the persons who had witnessed the incident have been deliberately kept back, the court may draw an inference against the prosecution and may, in a proper case, regard the failure of the prosecutor to examine the said witness as a serious infirmity in the proof of the prosecution case. In such a case, if the ends of justice require, the Court may even examine such witnesses by exercising its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (3) State of U. P. and another v. Jaggo alias Jagdish and others, AIR 1971 SC 1586 . It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that all witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but witnesses whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of the narrative must be called. The failure to produce such witness seriously affects the truth of the prosecution case. (4) Ram Bali and others v. State, AIR 1952 All 289 . Dealing with the duty of a trial Judge it was observed that a Sessions Judge is expected to try a criminal case intelligently and not leave every thing in the hands of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel. It is his duty to find out whether the examination of any witness would be necessary in the interests of justice or not. He is bound to examine any witness whose evidence he considers essential in the interests of justice. It is his duty to find out whether the examination of any witness would be necessary in the interests of justice or not. He is bound to examine any witness whose evidence he considers essential in the interests of justice. He cannot evade this statutory responsibility by omitting to give all thought to the question whether the evidence of any witness left out by the parties is essential or not. 8. The legal position in the matter is quite clear and hardly require emphasis. It is necessary for the prosecutor to examine all material witnesses to unfold the truth for just decision of the case. However, the law leaves the choice with the prosecutor to select and produce the witnesses as appear to be necessary for the purpose, thus avoiding the repetition of the narrative of the occurrence or to produce such witness who, according to the Public Prosecutor are not expected to support the prosecution case as having been won over by the accused or for any other sufficient reason. If the prosecutor fails to examine material witness an inference can in suitable cases be drawn that the witness who ought to have been produced but not actually produced would not have supported the prosecution case and the failure to so produce may prejudice the prosecution case and raise a doubt as to the very truthfulness of the prosecution case. Beyond this, a trial Judge is not expected to compel the prosecution to produce a particular witness or witnesses. 9. As regards the duty cast on the trial Judge under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is no doubt true that he is required to consider whether the testimony of a particular witness is essential to the just decision of the case and if he comes to that conclusion it would be obligatory on him to examine such witness as court witness under this section. As regards the exercise of powers in discharge of legal obligation by a trial Judge under this section, by its very nature it is very difficult to lay down any general direc tion as to whether and at what stage the powers should be exercised to summon a particular witness as a court witness. As was observed by this Court in Ram Balis case (supra) a Sessions Judge is expected to try a criminal case intelligently. 10. As was observed by this Court in Ram Balis case (supra) a Sessions Judge is expected to try a criminal case intelligently. 10. In the present case what appears from the impugned order is that the learned Sessions Judge has not closed the matter. Only thing provided is that it is not just and proper to summon the two injured persons as court witnesses at the instance of the defence at this stage. The trial is still going on. The prosecution has closed its evidence and the two injured witnesses appear to have been discharged at the instance of the Public Prosecutor on the plea that they had arrived at the last stage of the occurrence and have been won over by the accused persons. Whether or not this assertion is correct is not for this court to go into and decide. Only thing which can be said is that if in the facts it is so justified an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution if the necessary witness is found to have been withheld for unjustified reason. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order has observed that it is open to the accused to examine the two injured witnesses in defence and that such an observation is unjustified and would act to the prejudice of the accused persons because what is the duty of the court cannot be shifted to the defence. Considering in the correct prospective it is difficult to say that the learned Sessions Judge has required the accused persons to examine these witnesses in defence. It is the choice of the accused persons to examine or not to do so. In case the witnesses are not examined in defence the matter will yet be required to be considered by the Sessions Judge before or after hearing the arguments whether it is necessary in the cause of justice to examine the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure. It is open to examine a parson as court witness at any stage of the trial. Even in the impugned order the court has declined to exercise the powers at the instance of the accused persons and at the relevant stage. It is open to examine a parson as court witness at any stage of the trial. Even in the impugned order the court has declined to exercise the powers at the instance of the accused persons and at the relevant stage. That does not, however, imply that the learned Sessions Judge will not apply him into the matter and will refrain from examining the witness in case he arrives at the conclusion that their testimony is essential to the just decision of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injured witnesses being admittedly present at the occurrence are material witnesses and ought to be examined under Section 311 of the Code. Prima facie there is some force in this submission irrespective of what was pleaded by the Public Prosecutor. 12. The impugned order is obviously an interim order and ordinarily it may not be open to interfere in exercise of inherent powers which in nature are extraordinary powers. The matter has to be left to the trial court and, doubt not, that the learned trial Judge will apply his mind to the matter, keeping in view the legal position as to the exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Code as has been analysed above. 13. The petitioners learned counsel lastly submitted that the case involv ing the murder of local practising lawyer may be transferred outside the district. A request to this effect appears to have been made earlier but this request was not accepted and the application was rejected by this court on August 21, 1985. It is also submitted that the case may be transferred from the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge to any other Sessions Court at Barabanki. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407 of the Code lays down that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one criminal court to another criminal court in the same sessions division, unless an applica tion for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. It is not the case that any such application had been moved by the accused persons before the Sessions Judge, Barabanki. As such there is no question of consideration by this court of the request for transfer of the case to any other Additional Sessions Judge. It is not the case that any such application had been moved by the accused persons before the Sessions Judge, Barabanki. As such there is no question of consideration by this court of the request for transfer of the case to any other Additional Sessions Judge. If so advised the accused persons may move the Sessions Judge in this regard. And if any such prayer is made the same without doubt will receive due consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. 14. Subject to what has been observed above, the petition is dismissed. .