1. This is an application to revise the order of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam refusing to summon the Pandarasannadhi of Tiruvadhuthurai as a defence witness. The contention of Mr. Ethiraj for the petitioner is that summons was issued to the Pandarasannadhi, but on the application of the complainant the Sub-Magistrate declined to send for and examine two witnesses including the Pandarasannadhi as they in his opinion appeared to have been included with a view to cause vexation to those witnesses themselves. This he had no jurisdiction to do. Evidently the Magistrate ordered summons to issue without scrutinising the list of witnesses put in for the defence. Though he should not have acted on the representation of the complainant, the Magistrate was perfectly justified, when the matter was brought to his notice that certain witnesses were cited only for the purpose of causing vexation and delay, in ordering that they should not be compelled to appear in his Court. It cannot be said that the Pandarasannadhi could really give any evidence which would be of help to the defence. The order as regards the Pandarasannadhi is, therefore, right and I decline to interfere with it. As regards the other witnesses and the production of documents: the defence is entitled to call for relevant documents, which would be helpful to the case, The Magistrate would exercise his discretion in calling for such documents as he thinks would be relevant to the case after hearing the accused or his counsel on the matter.