ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN inquiry was in progress under Section 386, I. P. C. in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Pali, in case No. 107 of 1970 against Ganpat Singh. Arun Kumar. Jagdish Lal and Bhawani Singh, February 16, 1971, was posted for cross-examining the prosecution witness" Mst. Anusuia. The witness went to Pali from Jaipur for appearing into the witness-box. That day accused Ganpat Singh due to illness could not put in appearance, nor did his Advocate attend the Court. The Munsiff-Magistrate, therefore, forfeited the bail bonds of Ganpat Singh and ordered for the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. On the verbal request of the counsel for the accused, who were present before the Court the Magistrate gave one more chance to get the witness cross-examined, provided they paid Rs. 40/- on account of her diet money and travelling allowance.

(2.) A revision application was taken against that order to the court of learned Sessions Judge. Pali. The said Judge observed in his order, dated May 25. 1971 that the dilatory tactics were being adopted on behalf of the accused with the intention of prolonging the proceedings and, therefore, the Magistrate was well within his right in saddling the accused persons, who were present before the Court, with the expenses of the above named witness.

(3.) DISSATISFIED by the above order. Arun Kumar, Jagdish Lal, Bhawani Singh and Ganpat Singh have preferred this revision petition. The contention of learned Counsel for the applicants is that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for award of costs from the accused. If Ganpat Singh was not present, the only step which the Court could have taken was to forfeit his bail bonds and recover penalty. In the absence of Ganpat Singh adjournment was mandatory and when that was the position, the accused, who were present before the Court, could not have been compelled to pay the witness expenses. The order of learned Magistrate, therefore, was without jurisdiction Learned counsel for the State also supported this view.