( 1 ) I find that in this case the learned Magistrate has called for the whole record of another case and has actually exhibited the origi- nal depositions given by the Panchas in the previous Special Case No. 6 of 1960. The learned Magistrate has ignored the instructions contained in Rule 34 in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Criminal Manual 1960 Original depositions in other cases should not be marked as Exhi- bits unless it is very necessary to do so. Ordinarily certified copies of depositions would serve the purpose and original record should not be sent for. The instructions of the High Court contained in Rule 34 in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Criminal Manual 1960 should be strictly followed by the Magistrates.

( 2 ) FOR the reasons given in my judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1963 (State v. Rameshbhai VII G. L. R. 439) this appeal against the acquittal of the second Panch is dismissed. According to the prosecution both the Panchas were present at the time of the panchnama and both of them gave false evidence in their depositions in Special Case No. 6 of 1960 In the present prosecution the evidence led by the prosecution and the evidence led by t