A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Deep Narain and others were being prosecuted at the instance of Chintamani Pandey Under Section section 325 and 323 read with section 34 IPC. The prosecution evidence was offered and defence was being produced. Several adjournments were granted to the accused for examining their defence witnesses and ultimately on 9-11-1957, they were told that no further adjournment will be granted. The next date was 20-11-1957, but the case was not taken up on that date and was adjourned to 29-11-1957. On that date one witness for the defence was examined, but an application was made for examining the other defence witnesses. The case was adjourned as requested to 10-12-1957. No steps were, however, taken for summoning any defence witnesses and when the case was called on 10-12-1957, the accused again applied for adjournment for producing defence. The learned Magistrate noted that enough accommodation had already been given to the accused for producing their defence witnesses, but they had not taken any steps for summoning any witness for that date. He, however, gave them one more chance on condition that they paid Rs. 25 as costs of adjournment to the complainant. Against this order of awarding costs, Deep Narain and others went up in revision to the Additional District Magistrate, but he refused to interfere. They have, therefore, filed this application in revision in this Court with the prayer that the order of the learned Magistrate be set aside and they be allowed to produce their defence witnesses without payment of Rs. 25 as costs.
(2.) The connected Criminal Miscellaneous application Under Section 561A Code of Criminal Procedure is on behalf of the complainant who wants that as the decision of the case is being delayed unnecessarily, the revision application should be decided one way or the other at an early date.
(3.) Two questions arise. The first is whether the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to award costs at all and the other question is whether in the circumstances of the case, the order awarding costs was justified.;