D.K. ASSOCIATES Vs. CHANDER BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions under Sec. 482 CrPC, a short legal question that has been raised is with regard to the power of the Metropolitan Magistrate to impose costs in the criminal cases. In all these cases, the learned Metropolitan Magistrates had imposed costs on the complainants on account of non appearance of the complainants or their counsel on various dates. Some of those orders were assailed in revisions before the court of ASJs, who maintained the orders of Magistrates. Through the orders assailed are interlocutory, but since a question of law arises, these petitions are entertained for hearing.

(2.) The contention that has been raised by the petitioner 's counsel is that the Magistrate has no power to impose cost upon the complainant in the criminal cases. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. State & Anr., : 177(2011) DLT 229.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the aforesaid decision relied upon the petitioner, it is noted that the provisions of Sec. 309 CrPC did not come to the notice of this court in that case. Sec. 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to postpone or adjourn the proceedings. This Sec. empowers the Magistrate to exercise this power, but subject to certain conditions and restrictions prescribed therein. The relevant provisions for the present controversy are in Sub -Section (2) and Explanation 2 of Sec. 309 CrPC. These read as under: