LAKHPAT RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in whose Court the appeal of the applicant was pending at the time. By this order, the learned Judge adjourned the hearing of the appeal, hut at the same time ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 100/as costs of adjournment to the respondent.

(2.) AGAINST this order of the learned Judge, the applicant has come up in revision to this Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to award costs on account of the adjournment of the hearing of the appeal. He has contended that section 344 which occurs in chap, 14, Criminal P. C. , which is headed as "general Provisions as to Enquiries and Trials" has no application to an appellate Court or a revisional Court. It is conceded by learned counsel that adjournments ordered under Section 344, Criminal P. C. , can be made on such terms as the Court thinks fit. These terms may include payment of costs. The argument of the learned counsel, however, is that the provisions of Section 344, Criminal P. C. , are confined to the Court which is holding either an enquiry or a trial. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon (1) the case of Mathura Prasad v. Basant Lal, 28 all. 207, (2) the case of King Emperor v. Chhabraj Singh, 1902 All. W. N. 59, (3) the case of Suraj bhan v. Emperor, 21 ori. L. J. 201 (Lah.) and (4) the case of Jethanand Thawardas v. Tahil Ram, a. I. R. 1936 sind 235. In King Emperor v. Chhabraj Singh, the facts were that Chhabraj Singh was tried and convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 384, Penal Code, and was sentenced to eighteen months' R. I. Chhabraj Singh appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge. At the date of the hearing of the appeal, an application for an adjournment was made by the Public Prosecutor. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge granted an adjournment and ordered payment of Rs. 75 by Government to the appellant.

(3.) AGAINST this order an application in revision was filed in this Court. Blair J. who decided the revision, expressed the view, "i know of no power to grant such costs" and allowed the revision and set aside the order in respect of costs.