Right to defence witnesses requires reasoned refusal; a Magistrate cannot limit witness process by personal assessment of sufficiency.

Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives an accused a valuable right to have process issued for defence witnesses after entering upon defence, and refusal is permitted only where the request is vexatious, intended to delay proceedings, or would defeat the ends of justice, with reasons recorded in writing. The accused's ability to lead defence evidence is part of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21. A Magistrate cannot cap the number of defence witnesses on the assumption that they will prove the same point or substitute its own view of sufficiency. The restriction on witnesses was therefore unjustified, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate could restrict the accused to examining only four defence witnesses and refuse process for the remaining witnesses without recording any of the grounds contemplated by Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 243(2) confers on the accused a valuable right to have process issued for defence witnesses after entering upon defence, and refusal is permissible only where the application is found to be for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice, with reasons recorded in writing. The accused's right to adduce evidence in support of the defence is part of the requirement of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Magistrate's assumption that all witnesses were to prove the same point was held to be unsound, because the accused sought to examine different persons to explain possession of different items of excess gold. The court cannot substitute its own view of how much defence evidence is sufficient, nor deny process merely because it considers some witnesses unnecessary.

Conclusion: The restriction on defence witnesses was unjustified and amounted to denial of a fair trial. The order of the Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---