27 It must be pointed out that there is a distinction between failure to call a witness and failure to call or adduce evidence. The Section deals with failure to call evidence and not failure to call a particular witness. See BELLO VS KASSIM (1969) NMLR 148, 152. Therefore, the rule in Section 167 (d) applies where a party fails to adduce evidence by withholding evidence which could have been but was not produced. See ONWUJUBA VS OBIENU (1991) 4 NWLR (PR. 183) 16 SC; OLUSANYA VS OSINLEYE (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1367) 148; and SHODIYA VS THE STATE (2013) 14 NWLR (PT. 1373) 147 where Alagoa JSC quoted the provisions of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, that the Court may presume evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. While it is the law that the prosecution is not bound to call a particular witness where his case can otherwise be proved, See ARCHIBONG VS THE STATE (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000); STATE VS OLATUNJI (2003) 14 NWLR (PT. 839) 138; SHURUMO VS THE STATE (2010) 12 SCNJ 47, its failure to adduce evidence at its disposal which it is supposed to adduce amounts to withholding of ??????evidence 28 and calls for invocation of Section 167 (d) seeEMEKA VS CHUBA IKPEAZU & ORS (2017) LPELR ??? 41920 (SC) where Ogunbiyi JSC, referring to BUHARI VS OBASANJO per Belgore JSC as he then was held that failure to produce the letter in question meant either that the letter did not exist or if existed, and not produced, it could be presumed that if produced, its contents would not have supported the Appellant???s case. ???The purport of the Rule in Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act is to permit the Court to presume that a Party who withholds evidence which could be but was not produced, would if produced, be unfavourable to or against him. Such a Party withholds the evidence at his peril. A party in civil action in possession of material evidence in support of pleaded facts, and is in criminal trials, the prosecution in possession of material evidence, who withholds that evidence which could be but was not produced, does so at his peril. Failure to adduce vital evidence at a Party???s disposal which he is supposed to