SANNASI KUDUMBAN Vs. SIVASUBRAMANIA KONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main point involved in this petition is whether Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code authorises a Magistrate to grant an adjournment; conditionally on the. payment of costs. The power, if it exists is certainly one very rarely exercised; on the other hand, the words of the section ("on such terms as it thinks fit") seem wide enough to cover an order making the payment of costs by one party to another a condition of granting an adjournment. This is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the only cases to which our attention has been directed Mathura Prasad v. Basant Lal (1905) I.L.R 38 A.209 Sheo Prasad Poddar v. The Corporation of Calcutta (1901) 9 C.W.N.18 and a recent decision of a single Judge of this Court in Crl. Rev. Cases Nos. 485 and 486 of 1916 are all in his favour. It is pointed out that the Code contains no provision for the recovery of costs ordered to be paid under this section. But this is not conclusive, for Sections 433 and 488 are instances in which Courts are specifically empowered to award costs without any provision as to their realisation. As at present advised I must hold that Section 344 confers the power in question.

(2.) Our attention is drawn to the fact that this case was taken up on a Police charge sheet filed on information furnished by petitioner. It appears however that petitioner had himself engaged a vakil, and that he (petitioner) applied for the adjournment in consequence of the vakil s absence. In such circumstances the fact that he was not a complainant under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, would not be a bar to an order being passed against him.

(3.) The petition should be dismissed. Napier, J.