These are two Criminal Revision Petitions, which have been filed against the orders made by the learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kulitalai that he should examine an officer as a Court witness in C.C. Nos 839 and 840 of 1950.

I am unable to see any objection to the course adopted by the learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate. Under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, a Court has

unrestricted powers of summoning a witness. The only restriction is that this power should not be exercised as has been pointed out by Somasundaram, J., in In re K.V.R.S. Mani1, to save the parties from trouble and expense. Subject to this, it is not only the prerogative but also the plain duty of a Court to examine such of those witnesses as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between the State and the subject. It would not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, merely because the evidence taken supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused Narayana Nambiar, In re2. A just decision under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, does not mean a decision in favour of the defence Kesava Pillai v. Emperor3.

The only r