1. A Magistrate has jurisdiction to proceed with a case under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, even when the minor owner of the property is not made a party to the proceeding, if the minor's guardian claims possession on their behalf. 2. A Magistrate has wide discretion under Section 148(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, to assess the amount of costs to be awarded to the successful party and is not required to hold an inquiry into the actual costs incurred.

Jamuar, J.

1. This is an application by the second party to a proceeding under Sec.145 Criminal P. C. against an order passed against them in that proceeding by a Magistrate of Bettiah. The argument advanced in support of this application is that in the circumstances of this case the entire proceeding to without jurisdiction. As the point raised involved an important question of law, the application was referred to a Division Bench for decision.

2. The land involved in the proceeding was B bighas 8 kathas 13 dhurs in village Siswa Bahuarwa. The case of the first party is that these lands were recorded in the revisional survey in the names of Mahto. Lal Parikha having died without leaving a male issue & in jointness with Bhoj Mahto, Bhoj Mahto came in possession of the lands. Thereafter Bhoj Mahto died leaving a son Goga Mahto, who inherited the lands in question & became the sole owner thereof. A few years later, Goga Mahto died leaving a daughter named Mt. Sokrania as his only issue & his widow Mt. Sundari. The case of the first party, thereafter, proceeds that Mt. Sokrania became the owner of the property left by Goga Mahto and enjoyed possession over it. Mt. Sokrania. who is still a minor, was married to Bamayan Mahto son of Bacha Mahto, one of the members of the first party to the proceeding, and it is Bacha, Mahto who has been looking after the property on behalf of his minor daughter-in-law Mt. Sokranta,

On these facts, Bacha Mahto claimed to be in khas possession of about 1 bigha of the lands in dispute on behalf of Mt. Sokrania, and the rest of the lands through bataidars who are the other members of the first party.

3. The claim of the second party is that the lands in question have been coming in possession of one Jag Mahto and in the following circumstances. It is not denied that Lal Parikha and Bhoj had separated from their other brothers and were living jointly. It is also not denied that on the death of Lal Parikha, Bhoj came into possession of the property and after him, his son Goga. It is however, the case of the second party that, as Goga Mahto had no male issue, and since he and his wife Mt. Sundari became crippled and invalid, due to old age, Goga Mahto adopted Jag Mahto &, thereafter, Jag Mahton began to look after the affairs as the adopted son of Goga and came into possession of the property. It may be stated that Jag Mahto is a grandson of Bhicha Mahto, one of the brothers of Lal Parikha and Bhoj who had separated from him.

4. The learned Magistrate went into the question whether Jag Mahto had been adopted by Goga Mahto and he came to the conclusion that the story of adoption set up by the second party was false. The learned Magistrate concluded his order by finding that Mt. Sokrania was in possession of the lands in dispute through her father-in-law, Bacha Mahto of the first party, in accordance with the case of the first party. The learned Magistrate, furthermore, under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Sec.148, Criminal P. C. ordered Jag Mahto to pay to the first party a sum of Rs. 250.00 towards the expenses incurred in respect of witnesses and pleaders fee to cover part of the cost incurred by the first party. .

5. Mr. Kameshwar Dayal, who has appeared to support of this application, contended, in the first place, that Mt. Sokrania ought to have been made a party to the proceeding and, by reason of her non-joinder, the entire proceeding has been vitiated and was without jurisdiction. His argument was that, since it was Mt. Sokrania who, according to the first party, had come in possession of the lands after the death of her father Goga Mahto, she ought to have been made a party to the proceeding. I had stated that Mt. Sokrania is a minor and it was her father-in-law, Bacha Mahto a member of the first party, who claimed to be in possession of the property in dispute on behalf of Mt. Sokrania. In support of his contention, Mr. Kameshwar Dayal relied upon the case of --Jhabu Singh V/s. G. E