SOMAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sub-Magistrate, Aluru, has, in this case, passed the following order-

(2.) Mr. Ramachandra Rao for the accused-petitioner argues that this order is contrary to the terms of the Criminal Procedure Code. He relies on Atchutha Rao v. Emperor, 1936 M.W.N. 1093, where it was held that an order of a Magistrate that

(3.) It was laid down therein that the Magistrate was bound to deal with each witness separately and to decide whether his expenses were to be deposited before he was summoned and that he was clearly in error in ordering a lump sum to be deposited. Under the Code as amended recently, section 207-A, sub-section(11), proviso 2, runs in these terms :-