JADUMONI MANGARAJ Vs. SARAT CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 439, Criminal P. C. is directed against an order dated 6-11-1955 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, directing the petitioner (accused) to pay Rs. 100/- as adjournment costs in a criminal case pending against him. The opposite party (complainant) is a Government servant and had to come from Sambalpur. His witnesses, four in number, who wore in attendance on that day came from Kendrapara, all of them being lawyers practising at Kenprapara. The allegation of the complainant was that he had spent a sum of Rs. 188/- for getting his witnesses from Kendrapara. The accused was absent on that day and a petition supported by a medical certificate was filed, praying for an adjournment of his case on the ground that he had been suffering from low blood pressure for the last three days and that he had been advised rest in bed for at least one month. The Additional District Magistrate observes that either the accused or his Advocate "could have Intimated the Court yesterday so that the prosecution witnesses could have been intimated on' the telephone yesterday- not to attend Court today". This reasoning appears to me to be rather far fetched. If the accused had been suffering from low blood pressure for the past three days and had been advised rest in bed, I fail to see hew he could have come on the previous day or otherwise intimated to the Court that he was going to ask for adjournment on that day. On the 23rd December the accused appeared and applied to the Court for rescinding the previous order imposing Rs. 100/- as adjournment costs. In a lengthy order passed on that day the Magistrate says that he had no power to revise his previous order; and apart from his Competency in the matter the Magistrate has held that the accused was mulcted with costs because he had failed to give intimation in time and not because his prayer for adjournment was not reasonable.

(2.) SECTION 344, Criminal P. C. empowers the Court to adjourn an enquiry or trial if, from the absence of a witness or any other reasonable cause it becomes necessary so to do. The section does not entitle a Court to impose costs on one side or the other though in particular cases Magistrates do occasionally order costs of the opposite party to be paid. The section is silent though it may be remembered that the Code of Criminal Procedure makes express provision for payment of costs, in certain specified sections, like S. 148. Moreover, this being a warrant case the enquiry should be held in the interests of the State and the Code provides in Section 544 for payment of the reasonable expenses of the complainant or a witness, by the State. This provision is of course, subject to the rules made by the State Government; and since no such rule has been placed before me the Court is competent to direct that the costs be paid by the State. Mr. Acharya appearing for the accused has also drawn my attention to the case of Mohanlal v. Mohini Mohan AIR 1948 Cal 194 (A) where the same view has been taken.

(3.) EVEN otherwise I am of opinion that the order directing the payment of Rs. 100/- as costs in a criminal case is so preposterous that I think it my duty to interfere.