JUDGMENT : Richards, J. This is an application in which it is sought to set aside an order of a Magistrate of the first class, in which he awarded a sum of Rs. 100 to be paid by the complainant as part of the terms of the adjournment of the case. It appears that the complainant instituted proceedings under section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860. A day having been fixed for the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecutor failed to put in an appearance. The Magistrate finds that this failure was willful, and I have the strongest suspicion that he had facts before him from which be might well draw that inference. In effect this was an application by the prosecution to adjourn the case, and the Magistrate adjourned the case upon the terms that the complainant should pay Rs. 100 costs. I expect that this sum would hardly compensate the accused for the expenses of bringing a barrister from Allahabad to Mirzapur, besides his other expenses, which were rended useless by the non-appearance of the complainant. Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with proceedings in prosecutions expressly empowers the Court to postpone or adjourn an enquiry upon such terms as it thinks fit. It seeing to me that this clearly entitles a Court to award costs to a party, who has been put to unnecessary expenses by the conduct of the other side. I furthermore think that it would be greatly to be deplored if the Court had no such power. I think the Court has power to award costs, and in proper cases it is a power that the Court should exercise; and I think a judicious exercise of the power would have the effect of preventing many useless adjournments. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the case of King-Emperor v. Chhabroj Singh, [1902] 22 A.W.N., 59. In that case Mr. Justice BLAIR set aside an order awarding costs of an adjournment against the Government. The attention of the learned Judge does not appear to have been called to the terms of section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and furthermore the case does not seem to have been argued, and the award of costs was against the Government. Justice BLAIR set aside an order awarding costs of an adjournment against the Government. The attention of the learned Judge does not appear to have been called to the terms of section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and furthermore the case does not seem to have been argued, and the award of costs was against the Government. It also appears that the adjournment was not the adjournment of a trial in the strict sense of the word, but of an appeal. The report of the case is a very short one, and I should think that in all probability the view that the learned Judge took was that an award of costs against the Government was made without jurisdiction. 2. In the case of Sheo Prasad Poddar v. The Corporation of Calcutta, [1904] 9 C.W.N., 18, a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in a considered judgment held that the Magistrate in granting an adjournment was entitled under the provisions of section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order costs to be paid by a party in whose favour an order for adjournment was made. 3. For these reasons I think the order of the Magistrate of the first class was right and should not be set aside.