Dave, J.—This is revision application by the complainant and it arises in the following circumstances :-— The petitioner filed a complaint under Secs. 147, 323 and 424 I.P.C. against 10 persons in the court of the Magistrate at Jetaran. After recording the complainants evidence, 5 of the accused were charged by the court under Secs. 323 and 424 I.P.C. and the rest were discharged Thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were recalled for further cross-examination by the accused. One of such witnesses was Daljitsingh, Sub-Inspector of Police. He was cross-examined on 18th of January 1954. After his examination it was submitted by the witness that he had attended the court on a previous date also viz., 1-8-1952 but he could not be examined on that date as the Magistrate was not present at the headquarters and, therefore, he requested that he should be paid his expenses for that date as well. The witness requested the court to verify the fact of his attendance from some Vakils. Accordingly, the Magistrate verified his attendance from three Vakils Shri Abhey karan, Shri Bachhraj & Shri Badridan and being thus satisfied, he ordered the complainant to pay the expenses of the witness for the previous d.l-8-1952as well. 2. Against the said order dated 18th of January 1954, the complainant filed a revision application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali. It was urged by him that the attendance of the said witness was not recorded on the order-sheet of 1-8-19,52, and that the Magistrates finding about his attendance on that date was incorrect. It was further contended that even if the witness was entitled to receive expenses for 1-8-1952, they should be borne by the Government, because the witness had to go back on account of the absence of the Magistrate. Lastly, it was urged that in warrant cases, the expenses for recalling the witness, after a charge is framed, should be borne by the State. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the finding of the Magis-trate regarding the attendance of the witness on 1-8-1952, was not incorrect. He also turned down the objection regarding the liability of the State to pay the expenses. The complainant has, therefore, come to this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions in this Court. He also turned down the objection regarding the liability of the State to pay the expenses. The complainant has, therefore, come to this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions in this Court. In the first place, it has been urged that in a warrant case, which is initiated on a private complaint, the expenses should be borne by the State after the charge is framed and the witnesses are recalled for further cross-examination. Secondly, it has been urged that the finding of both the courts regarding the presence of the witness on 1-8-1952 is incorrect. 4. Now, the first question which comes for determination is whether in a non-cognizable warrant case which is instituted on a private complaint, the State must bear the expenses of the complainants witnesses when they are recalled for their cross-examination after the charge against the accused is framed. In the present case, the complaint was filed under secs 147, 323 & 424 of the Indian Penal Code as stated above, but no charge under sec. 147 I.P.C. was framed against any of the accused. It was only under secs. 323 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code that charges were framed against five accused. Thus none of the accused has been charged with any cognizable offence. The offences under secs. 323 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code are certainly warrant cases but they are not cognizable. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the State to bear the expenses of the complainants witnesses after the charge is framed. It is urged that when the charge is framed, the complainant should be deemed to have prima facie established the charges against the accused and, therefore, it becomes the duty of the State thereafter to bear their exepe-nses. In support of his argument, he has referred to the case of Faiz Mohammed vs. Nabu (1). In that case it was remarked that "it is doubt full whether under the Criminal Procedure Code it is duty of the complainant to pay the expenses of his witnesses over again for further cross-examination. There seems to be no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to justify this procedure...... The language of sec. In that case it was remarked that "it is doubt full whether under the Criminal Procedure Code it is duty of the complainant to pay the expenses of his witnesses over again for further cross-examination. There seems to be no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to justify this procedure...... The language of sec. 257 Criminal Procedure Code seems to imply that it is the accused who applies for re-caling of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination and it is he who should pay the expenses and not the complainant." It may be remarked that we are not here concerned with sec. 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code but only about the question of recalling the witness under sec. 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge who made the above remarks was himself in doubt whether it was the duty of the complainant to pay the expenses and, therefore, this case is not of the much help to the petitioner. Learned counsel has next referred to the case Nandkishore vs. Kalika Misra(2) in which it was observed by a learned Single Judge that all criminal prosecutions are at the instance of the Crown and the Crown is really the prosecutor in a criminal case and all costs ought to be paid by the crown for summoning witnesses for the prosecution. With due respect, it may be observed that howsoever desirable this view might be sec. 544 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the question of expenses witnesses to be paid by the Government in certain events requires the Magistrate to exercise judicial discretion and not to proceed with the view expressed above. If the State were to bear the expenses of all criminal prosecutions even thought started on private complaints, a provision to that effect ought to have been made in the Criminal Procedure Code. In that case, there would have been no necessity of giving a discretion to the Criminal Courts as laid down in sec. 544 Cr.P.C., sec. 544 of the Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows— "544. Subject to any rules made by the State Government, any Criminal Court may, if it thinks fit, order payment, on the part of Government, of the reasonable expenses of any complainant or witness attending for the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings before such Court under this Code." 5. Subject to any rules made by the State Government, any Criminal Court may, if it thinks fit, order payment, on the part of Government, of the reasonable expenses of any complainant or witness attending for the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings before such Court under this Code." 5. It is clear from the provisions of this section that it contemplates that the State Government may lay down rules dealing with the payment of expenses of a complainant or witness attending criminal court of the purpose of any inquiry, trial or any proceeding in the Court. If such rules are framed, then the Criminal Courts should be guided by them. If there are no such rules or the rules are silent on some matter arising in that connection then it is left to the judicial discretion of the Criminal Court to order payment on the part of the Government of the reasonable expenses of any complainant or witness attending the court. When the case was argued, learned counsel for the petitioner was under the impression that the Government of Rajasthan had not made any rules under s. 544 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he thought that under this section, the State was bound to bear the expenses of his witness. Reference was also made to the case of Serumal vs. Saranbehari (3). It may be pointed out that by the time the said decision was given the Government had not made any rules. But that it is not the position now. Soon after the decision of the said case, the Government of Rajasthan laid down the rules in exercise of the powers upon it by sec. 544 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1899. The said rules have been published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated the 24th of Feb. 1951. The relevant notification runs follows:— "No. F. 21 (250) Jud./49.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 544 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1899. The said rules have been published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated the 24th of Feb. 1951. The relevant notification runs follows:— "No. F. 21 (250) Jud./49.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as adap-tad to Rajasthan, the Government of Rajasthan in pleased to make the following rules relating to the payment of expenses to witnesses in Criminal Courts:— Case in which Government is to pay the expenses.—(1) The Criminal Court are authorised to pay at the rates specified below, the expenses of complainants or witnesses.— (1) In cases in which the prosecution is instituted or carried on by or under the orders or with the sanction of the Government or of any Judged, Magistrate, or any other public officer or in which it shall appear to the presiding officer to be directly in furtherance of the interests of the public service; (2) In all cases entered in column 5 of Schedule II; appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure as not bailable; (3) in all cases which are cognizable by the police, and— (4) in all cases in which they are compelled by the Magistrate, of his own motion, to attend under sec 540, of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 6. Rule 1, which is reproduced above enumerates the case in which the criminal courts are authorised to pay the expenses of complainants or witnesses. It is clear that the present case is not covered by the said rule and therefore, although the learned Magistrate has not referred to it, he was correct in asking the complainant to bear the expenses of his witness. According to the said rule, the State is not bound to bear the expenses in a case instituted on a private complaint even though it is a warrant case and the witnesses are recalled for cross examination after the charge is framed. Th first point is, therefore, decided against the petitioner. 7. The next objection raised by learned counsel for petitioner was that the witness Daljitsingh was not present in the court on the 1st of August, 1952, & that the decision of the trial court is incorrect. Th first point is, therefore, decided against the petitioner. 7. The next objection raised by learned counsel for petitioner was that the witness Daljitsingh was not present in the court on the 1st of August, 1952, & that the decision of the trial court is incorrect. It would suffice to say in this connection that the question whether a particular witness was present in the court on a particular day or not is purely one of fact and when the trial court and the learned Sessions Judge have given a concurrent finding on that matter, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in revision. This objection is, therefore, also fit to be dismissed. 8. Before parting with the case, however, it seems necessary to point out to the trial court that if Daljitsingh was summoned to give evidence of facts which had come to his knowledge in his official capacity, then instead of giving the expenses to him directly, it should proceed in the manner laid down in rule 6 of the Rules referred above. 9. The revision application is dismissed.