DNARAYANA RAO Vs. INSPECTOR OF LABOUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate imposing cost of Rs. 65-10 Np towards the complainant's travelling allowance the petitioner who was the accused before the said Magistrate has preferred this revision petition. Briefly stated the facts leading up to this revision are as follows: In a proceeding arising under the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules 1956, the petitioner was accused of the offence under Rules 5, 8 etc., of the said Rules. The complainant in the case was the Labour Inspector. On 19.8.1960 the complainant was present but the accused (petitioner) was absent. His advocate produced a medical certificate and prayed for an adjournment. So, the case was adjourned to 19.9.1960. On this date, the complainant was present but the accused was again absent. His advocate filed a memo with a medical certificate praying for an adjournment. The learned Magistrate perhaps, was a, little irritated at the adjournment so prayed for, and in his opinion it was a fit case in which he could put the accused on terms. Accordingly he passed an order under the provisions of Section 344(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 65-10 Np towards the complainant's travelling allowance. Aggrieved by the order the accused has preferred this revision.

(2.) It is urged by Sri Swamy, the learned advocate for the petitioner that the order awarding costs is illegal and without jurisdiction, It is further urged that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner had reasonable grounds for an adjournment more so because, he was ill and was under medical treatment.

(3.) The learned Magistrate considers that the reasons advanced for adjournment are not tenable; that the medical certificate is a ruse for a further adjournment and therefore, in his opinion, the accused should be put on terms. So costs were imposed.