AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Stevens and Harington, JJ.—This Rule was issued to show cause why the order of the Magistrate refusing to issue fresh processes for the attendance of the witnesses who had been cited by the accused and served with summonses should not be set aside and the proceedings reopened.
The Deputy Magistrate, who tried the case, has submitted an explanation. He explains that as the case was a petty summons-case and had been pending for some time, it was not thought fit to allow any more processes under the discretionary power given in Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
We think that there is no discretionary power given by Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to refuse to compel the attendance of a witness upon whom the Court has already issued process.
The conviction is set aside and the case will be reopened and decided afresh after compelling the attendance of the witnesses in question and taking and considering their evidence. In the meantime the fines, if levied, or so much thereof as may have been levied, must be refunded.