JUDGMENT : Knox, J. This is an application for revision of the order of a first class Magistrate refusing to stay proceedings in a case pending in his Court until final disposal of a civil appeal pending in this Court. 2. The criminal proceedings referred to arise out of a complaint filed by one Musammat Durga Knar, in which she has charged Musammat Mathura Kuar and Cliaudhri Amir Singh, with offences under sections 400 and 411 of the Penal Code, 1860. 3. These proceedings were instituted on the 11th of February, 1905. 4. The parties charged have appeared in Court, and all the evidence that the prosecution has produced has been recorded and charges have been drawn up. 5. In 1904, Musammat Durga Kuar had instituted proceedings for the recovery of the jewels which are the subject-matter of the criminal suit and had obtained a decree in her favour on the 23rd of February, 1905. 6. An appeal has been filed in this Court from the decree passed by the Civil Court. 7. The main ground urged for in revision is that it is possible that there may be two separate decisions of this Court upon evidence and issues which are one and the same both in the criminal and in the civil case, and those decisions may be at variance with each other. 8. Further, that there can be no objection to the criminal proceedings being adjourned until the civil appeal has been disposed of, in as much as all the evidence which the prosecution has produced has been recorded and is now beyond reach of any harm either from tampering with 01 death, etc., of any of the witnesses. The provision of law which gives a Criminal Court power to postpone or adjourn proceedings is contained in section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section provides that a Court may, by order in writing, stating tire reasons fur its action, adjourn any enquiry or trial owing to the absence of a witness or any other reasonable cause and for a reasonable time. Now in the ordinary course of events the civil appeal will not be decided until the end of the year 1907, and an adjournment, which will probably be an adjournment for a term of two years, can hardly be called an adjournment for, a reasonable time. Now in the ordinary course of events the civil appeal will not be decided until the end of the year 1907, and an adjournment, which will probably be an adjournment for a term of two years, can hardly be called an adjournment for, a reasonable time. Again, an explanation is attached to the section giving one instance of what is a reasonable cause for remand. That explanation is of course not exhaustive, but it is instructive. The reasonable cause intended, as is shown by that explanation, is some cause which will enable the Court to have before it all the materials relevant and forthcoming upon which it can come to a decision whether the accused has or has not committed the offence charged. The decision of this Court in the civil appeal will not be evidence in the criminal case and would, if tendered in evidence, be rightly rejected as inadmissible, To adjourn the hearing of the criminal case for this purpose alone would not be a reasonable cause. I decline to interfere and dismiss the application. The criminal case will proceed.