RASIYA Vs. K K CHANDUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Was the learned Magistrate justified in invoking his jurisdiction to award costs in the facts and circumstances of this case When adjournment is sought on the ground that the Counsel had taken ill all of a sudden/can or should that jurisdiction be invoked to award costs, the panacea for all evils to a non-party/ stranger- even when such non-party/ stranger is the Legal Services Authority Thoughts on these aspects are aroused in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed in 2006. The case was posted for trial to 11.9.2007. The learned Counsel for the petitioner took ill suddenly and had to be taken to the hospital. It is submitted that the Counsel was ready to go on with the trial but for his taking ill all of a sudden and unexpectedly. The Counsel could not conduct the trial on that day. The matter was reported to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate made the endorsement that there is no cross-examination for the petitioner and adjourned the case. Later, an application was filed to recall the complainant for cross-examination. The impugned order shows that no objections were raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant. The learned Magistrate however proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of an amount of Rs. 500/- as costs to the Legal Services Authority. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order.

(3.) I have not ordered notice to the respondent/complainant as the impugned order clearly shows that the learned Counsel for the complainant had not raised any objections against the prayer to recall the complainant for cross-examination. That appears to be evident from the further fact that cost has been ordered to be paid not to the complainant but to the Legal Services Authority.