Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

1. This case has already been before the High Court twice. As the learned Additional District Magistrate remarks, the complaint was filed in 1927. Devadoss, J., at one stage of the case suggested that the charge may as well be amended. In pursuance of that suggestion, the charge was as a matter of fact amended. The question then arose whether the accused was entitled to have the witnesses who were already examined in the case re-examined. The learned Additional District Magistrate held that he was not entitled to have the witnesses already examined re-examined simply because the charge was technically amended. He was corrected by this Court and Reilly, J., in his order, dated 20th September, 1928, directed examination of the witnesses who were already examined in the case. After that a further difficulty has arisen. The accused seems to have filed two lists of witnesses, the first on the 8th August, 1927 and the second on the 14th September, 1927. The second list contained the names of 28 witnesses. After the charge was altered on the 26th May, 1928, the accused wanted to add to the number of witnesses to be examined and gave a third list of witnesses. T