HORWILL
Horwill, J.
1. The petitioner was desirous of moving this Court to transfer a case from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kollegal; and in compliance with the provisions of Section 526 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he intimated the fact to the Court. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereupon passed an order under Section 526 (8) adjourning the case to the" 3rd March, 1941, requiring the accused to execute a bond for Rs. 200, and fixing the 3rd of March, 1941, as the date within which the High Court should be moved for transfer. He further directed that the petitioner should pay Rs. 39-8-0 as the costs of the day to the prosecution; because the petitioner had from time to time procured unnecessary adjournments and had delayed the application for transfer. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Magistrate was competent to pass an order directing the petitioner to pay the costs of the day to the prosecution.
2. Under Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court has power to grant an adjournment at the request of a party upon such terms as it thinks fit and "such terms" would, of course, include payment of costs to the othe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.