Emperor Vs. Nandbasappa Basappa

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 257-magistrate-witnesses for defence-powers to decline to summon-procedure-magistrate cannot arbitrarily decline to examine witnesses.;it is not competent to a magistrate to decline to examine witnesses cited for the defence on the ground that their evidence is unnecessary. he can, however, decline, under the provisions of section 257 of the criminal procedure code of 1898, to summon the witnesses. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. .....code, and have been sentenced each to a small fine. they apply in revision on the ground that a serious illegality was committed by the learned second class magistrate, before whom this trial was heard. fortunately-there is no dispute as to the facts under, lying this contention. these facts are: that after the petitioners had been called upon to open their defence several witnesses were called by them. eight of those witnesses' depositions were recorded by the learned magistrate, though in regard to six of them, it is clear, that their story has been seriously abbreviated, possibly mutilated. however that may be, when the magistrate had exhausted these witnesses, it would seem that he had also exhausted his own patience. for, concerning five other witnesses, who remained to be examined, he writes only: ' all these people repeat the defence story; i shall dispense with their evidence as unnecessary.' it does not appear upon what grounds the learned magistrate stated that these people, who had never been heard, would, if they were heard, repeat the defence story. and the magistrate should have borne 'in mind that although the evidence of these witnesses may have appeared to him to be unnecessary, those witnesses' attendance was needed, not in the magistrate's interest, but in the interests of the accused persons. if, therefore, the accused persons regarded them as necessary witnesses, it was not for the magistrate to pronounce them to be unnecessary, before he had heard them. it is quite clear that procedure such as this cuts at the very root of the fairness of a criminal 1 trial. the case might have been different if the learned magistrate had brought himself within the provisions ,of section 257 of the criminal procedure code, which empowers a magistrate to decline to issue process where he considers that application for such process is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. where the magistrate so considers arid.....