ORDER : 1. The explanation furnished by the learned Magistrate is unsatisfactory. What appears to have happened in course of the trial before the Magistrate is that the complainant produced certain witnesses in support of the prosecution on 10th December 1912. It does not appear from the record, and it seems very unlikely, on the explanation given by the learned Magistrate, that he ever at any part of the case ascertained from the complainant or otherwise the jiames of the persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution. There is nothing to show nor would there be under such circumstances any exercise of discretion, on the part of the Magistrate, selecting out of such witnesses those who seam to be necessary and those who seem to be unnecessary. The law requires the Magistrate to do this, and it is his duty to do so. On 28th December, the complainant of his own accord filed a fresh list of prosecution witnesses. The learned Magistrate very rightly observes that there is no section in the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorizes a complainant to file a fresh list of witnesses. Had the Magistrate scrutinized this list of witnesses and selected such as he thought necessary, he would have been fully within his powers in summoning such persons under the rowers given by Section 540 of the Cr PC. So far as the record goes, the learned Magistrate accepted, without scrutiny, the list which the complainant gave him and summoned the witnesses one and all. Now a witness is not an inanimate being and is not to be moved about as if he were a stick or a stone. He is a living person who has his work to do and whose convenience has to be considered. For a Magistrate to send for any person whom the complainant names in a supplementary list is a thoughtless act, and in some cases causes very serious inconvenience to parsons who ought not to be subjected to such inconvenience. The learned Magistrate attempts to justify his action by a reference to Section 540 of the Cr PC. That section is a section which confers very wide powers upon a Court. The learned Magistrate attempts to justify his action by a reference to Section 540 of the Cr PC. That section is a section which confers very wide powers upon a Court. But the wider the powers, the greater the exercise of discretion required of a Magistrate, and if the Magistrate will, as he ought to do, read S. 252 along with S. 540 of the Code, he will find that by S. 540 it was not intended that he should exercise his powers at the bidding of any parson, but that the powers are given to prevent any danger of miscarriage of justice just because some particular witness has not been called. The learned Magistrate supports his view of S. 540 by reference to four cases. The first case is said to be taken from 11 Bom. L.R. 1153. The names of the parties are not given and in the Bombay Series of the Indian Law Reports, Vol. 11, there are only pp. 732. I have examined the index of the volume cited, and there appears to be no ruling of the Bombay High Court commenting upon Section 252 of the Cr PC. The Case Emperor v. Percy Henry Burn, [1909] 11 Bom. L.R. 1153 : 4 I.C. 268 also does not run to (pp. 1153 of 11 Bom. L.R.) 2. The second case and the fourth case are taken from the Calcutta Weekly Notes. If the learned Magistrate had Studied the case of Ram Sarup Rai v. Emperor, [1906] 28 All. 302, he would have found that so far from supporting the view which he takes of S. 540 it supports the view set out by me above. The case was one of grievous hurt. By some oversight the medical evidence had not been recorded, and the Court exercising its flowers under S. 540, should have sent for and examined the Civil Surgeon. 3. In connexion with this case, the case of Queen-Empress v. Shakir Ali, [1897] 19 All. 502 is given. If the learned Magistrate had consulted the case in the report, he would have found that it had nothing whatever to do with the point now in question. The same remark applies to Queen v. Kasay Singh, [1874] 21 W.R. 61. The last case to which the learned Magistrate refers is Queen-Empress v. Bhairab Chunder Chuckerbutty, [1898] 2 C.W.N. 702. If the learned Magistrate had consulted the case in the report, he would have found that it had nothing whatever to do with the point now in question. The same remark applies to Queen v. Kasay Singh, [1874] 21 W.R. 61. The last case to which the learned Magistrate refers is Queen-Empress v. Bhairab Chunder Chuckerbutty, [1898] 2 C.W.N. 702. The passage to which the learned Magistrate refers is to be found at p. 718. The report of the case is not happily worded. If p. 718 is compared with p. 710, it will be found that this case also supports the view set out at the beginning of his judgment. 4. I have gone into this matter fully because Courts too often in the present day unconsciously lend themselves to the needless spinning out of proceedings whereby the time of the Court is wasted and parties, specially witnesses, are needlessly harassed. Under S. 252, the prosecution is given full opportunity of substantiating their whole case. But it is expected, and the expectation is a right and a proper one, that the prosecutor should come to Court with their case fully prepared and thought out. After the witnesses produced in support of the prosecution are heard, it is the duty of the Magistrate to see that prosecutors are not allowed to set the Court on to a roaming inquiry, summoning persons in the hope that something may be elicited which would help their case, and cases which ought to be heard within a fortnight are spun out to a period of six weeks and more to the inconvenience of all concerned. A striking commentary of what I have just said is furnished by this very case. The accused filed a list of 30 witnesses, dragged them to Court, and then did not examine a single one. The very fact that a list of 30 witnesses had been given in should have put the Magistrate upon his guard and he should have exercised the powers given him under S. 257 of the Code. Way should 30 witnesses have been put to this inconvenience by the needless act of the accused? Lat the record be returned.