PULIM CHENCHI REDDY Vs. MUNGAMURI SIVARAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises for determination in this case is whether after passing the final orders in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate could pass a separate order regarding costs under Section 148 (3), Cr.P.C., on the application filed by the successful party.

(2.) In M.C. No. 2 of 1966 with regard to proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., a final order was passed by the Court on 22-7-1966 and there was no order with regard to costs. The successful party styled as A-Party thereupon came forward with an application dated 27-9-1966 for the awarding of costs. They claimed that they spent a sum of Rs. 663.50 being the amounts paid towards Commissioners fee, Commissioners expenses, watching charges and advocates fee but claimed only Rs. 500. After a counter was filed the Magistrate passed an order granting costs of Rs. 500. Hence this petition to revise that order.

(3.) Section 148(3), Cr.P.C., says that "when any costs have been incurred by any party to a proceeding . . . the Magistrate passing a decision under Section 145, 146 or 147 may direct by whom such costs shall be paid, whether by such party or by any other party to the proceeding and whether in whole or in part or in proportion. The learned counsel for the A-Party-respondents contended that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to award any costs after the order in the main petition had been passed. For this contention the decision of Lakshmana Rao, J. (as he then was), in Thoonga Vedan v. Perumal Goundan, AIR 1941 Mad 374, is relied on. The order is cryptic and reads as follows:--