https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41688 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. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:15:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41688 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41688