State vs Iris Chandrabala Premnath on 24 August, 1954
27. Lastly, it may not be out of place to point out that where the Legislature intended that a Magistrate should use his discretion, it said so in terms. For instance, Section 211, Sub-section (2), Criminal P. C., says that the Magistrate may in his discretion allow the accused to put in a further list of witnesses at a subsequent time and Section 212 lays down that the Magistrate may in his discretion summon and examine any witness named by the accused in the list submitted by him under Section 211. We have no doubt that if any discretion was intended to be given to a Presidency Magistrate in the matter of recording evidence in non-appealable cases, at the time of the amendment of Section 362 in 1923, Sub-section (4) would have in terms stated so. The right conferred by Sub-section (4) is unlimited and, therefore, with great respect, I am unable to agree with the view taken by Shah J. in -- 'Naran Velji v. Ranjitsingh (A).