JUDGMENT A.P. Srivastava, J. - Deep Narain and others were being prosecuted at the instance of Chintamani Pandey u/s s. 325 and 323 read with S. 34 IPC. The prosecution evidence was offered and defence was being produced. Several adjournments were granted to the accused for examining their defence witnesses and ultimately on 9-11-1957, they were told that no further ajournments will be granted. The next date was 20-11-1957, but the case was not taken up on that date and was adjourned to 29-11-1957. On that date one witness for the defence was examined, but an application was made for examining the other defence witnesses. The case was adjourned as requested to 10-12-1957. No steps were, however, taken for summoning any defence witnesses and when the case was called on 10-12-1957, the accused again applied for adjournment for producing defence. The learned Magistrate noted that enough accommodation had already been given to the accused for producing their defence witnesses, but they had not taken any steps for summoning any witness for that date. He, however, gave them one more chance on condition that they paid Rs. 25 as costs of adjournment to the complainant. Against this order of awarding costs, Deep Narain and others went up in revision to the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, but he refused to interfere. They have, therefore, filed this application in revision in this Court with the prayer that the order of the learned Magistrate be set aside and they be allowed to produce their defence witnesses without payment of Rs. 25 as costs. 2. The connected Criminal Miscellaneous application u/s 561A Code of Criminal Procedure is on behalf of the complainant who wants that as the decision of the case is being delayed unnecessarily, the revision application should be decided one way or the other at an early date. 3. Two questions arise. The first is whether the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to award costs at all and the other question is whether in the circumstances of the case, the order awarding costs was justified. 4. 3. Two questions arise. The first is whether the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to award costs at all and the other question is whether in the circumstances of the case, the order awarding costs was justified. 4. Adjournments had been applied for and could be granted only u/s 344, Code of Criminal Procedure and Sub-clause (1)(sic)(A) of that section provides; If, from the absence of a witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trail(sic), the Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing, stating the reasons therefor from time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody. 5. This section, therefore empowers the Magistrate while adjourning the case to impose such terms as he thinks fit and if the accused were praying for adjournment on the ground that their witnesses had not come and wanted the case to be adjourned, there appears to be no reason why the Magistrate was not entitled to impose such terms as he thought fit including the payment of costs. 6. It may, however, be said that there are cases in which it has been held that though costs can be awarded to the accused, the accused themselves cannot be directed to pay costs. The first case in which this was laid down is the case of Beedha v. Emperor 20 ALJR 280 . The same view was taken in The State v. Laxminarayan AIR 1952 Nag. 1 and more recently in Bholanath Rakshit and Others Vs. Bisweswar Rakshit, AIR 1957 Cal 683 In the Nagpur case it was noted that a different opinion was taken in Sorabji M. Shroff Vs. Erachshaw B. Katrak, AIR 1932 Bom 470 . The feature which distinguishes these cases from the present one is that in those cases the accused were absent when the adjournment was moved on their behalf, and it was held that as the case could not proceed in the absence of the accused and had to be adjourned in any case, there could be no question of the accused being made to pay costs to the complainant. In the present case, however, the accused were present and wanted the case to be adjourned only for the examination of their witnesses. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was not bound to adjourn the case and if the accused wanted to be accommodated, it was open to the learned Magistrate to impose such terms on the accused as he considered fit. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention that in the present case the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to award costs. 7. As the learned Magistrate has noted that no less than a dozen opportunities had been given to the accused in this case to produce their defence and on the last date when the case was adjourned to 10-12-1957, the accused had not taken any steps for summoning their witnesses. They do say and have filed affidavit to the effect that they had filed process fee but the process fee is not to be found on record. The learned Magistrate has, however, expressly stated in his order that this was not correct and no process fee had in fact been filed. In the circumstances, the accused were themselves to blame if their witnesses were not present and it became necessary for them to apply for adjournment. The learned Magistrate cannot, therefore, be said to be unjustified when he required them to pay Rs. 25 as costs. The amount was not, in any way, excessive or unreasonable. 8. The order of the learned Magistrate, therefore, appears to be correct and cannot be interfered with. 9. The revision is, therefore, rejected, if however, the accused pay the costs even now, the learned Magistrate will permit them to summon their witnesses and examine them if they are produced. 10. Let the record be sent back to the learned Magistrate at an early date, so that the case may be proceeded with.