1. In this case a complainant Raghubir Sahai applies in revision against the orders of a Magistrate and of the District Magistrate in revision refusing to allow the complainant to produce a further witness against the accused. The accused persons were being tried under Sections 379 and 426, I.P.C., in the Court of the Tahsildar and a charge sheet was framed against them on 27th February 1936 and they pleaded not guilty to that charge sheet. The 29th February was fixed for the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution and those witnesses were cross-examined. It was after this stage that the complainant claimed that he could summon an entirely new witness, the moqaddam of his master, whom he had not previously mentioned. On 10th February 1931 the complainant had given a list of prosecution witnesses under Section 252(2), Criminal P.C. and the name of this moqaddam was admittedly not in that list. The complainant also desired certified copies of certain partition papers to be produced, but the Court refused to accept this. The view of learned Counsel is that the words 'the evidence of any remaining -witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken' in Section 256(1) give the prosecution the right to produce any number of witnesses at that stage. I cannot agree with that view of the law. It appears to me that under Section 252(2) the complainant is required to give in a list of prosecution witnesses. Under Section 254 the Magistrate may examine all those witnesses and then frame a charge sheet or he may frame a charge sheet before he has examined all those witnesses. If he adopts the latter course and certain witnesses remain from the list who have not been examined then those witnesses are the remaining witnesses under Section 256(1) and the complainant has a right to produce them after the cross-examination of those witnesses who have been previously examined. But if the Magistrate has examined all the witnesses for the prose, cution in the list under Section 252(2) and has then framed a charge sheet, in my opinion there are no witnesses remaining who could come under the description in Section 256(1). This view of the law has been taken by Allsop, J. in Emperor v. Madan Gopal Cri. Revn. No. 272 of 1935. A contrary view has been taken in a ruling reported in Emperor v. Percy Henry Burn (1909) 11 Bom.L.R. 1153. That ruling was of the year 1909 and it does not appear to have been followed in this Court. For these reasons I consider that the view of law put forward in support of this revision is incorrect. The Courts below have refused to allow the complainant to produce his further witnesses and I consider that that refusal was correct. Accordingly I refuse this application in revision.