ICHAB SHEIKH Vs. KHIRODE KUMAR GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule has been obtained by one of the accused and is directed against an order calling on him to pay costs of Be. 15 to the complainant on account of an order of adjournment made on 3rd December 1943, The petitioner did not attend on that day. His case is that he was ill and his lawyer filed an application for adjournment accompanied by a medical certificate. The Magistrate adjourned the case but in so doing made the order against which the present rule is directed.

(2.) THERE is ample authority for the proposition that the words "on such terms as it thinks fit" in Section 344, Criminal P. C., are wide enough to include an order for costs. The question raised in the present rule, however, is whether such an order can be made when the Magistrate has no discretion to the refuse an adjournment Here the Petitioner was absent and the Magistrate was bound to adjourn the case .

(3.) IN his explanation the learned Magistrate states that he made the order not in order to compensate the complainant for the costs which might both own away but to coerce the petitioner and ensure his future attendance. All I need say about that is that the learned Magistrate has adopted an improper method in order to attain his object.