SUNNASI 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 vide 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 28 A. 207 ; 2 A.L.J. 831 ; A.W.N. (1905) 256 ; 2 Cr. L.J. 803 and Sew Prosad Poddar v. Corporation of Calcutta 9 C.W.N. 18 ; 2 Cr. L.J. 1, and a recent decision of a single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 485 and 486 of 19163 are all in his avour. 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 upon a Police charge sheet filed on information furnished by petitioner. It apprars, 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.