Judgment 1. The Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court Monghyr, has made this reference for modifying the order dated the 14th of February, 1966 of Shri M. Hussain, Magistrate, assessing the amount of cost payable by the second party and third party to the first party in a proceeding under S. 145, Criminal P. C., in pursuance of an order dated 19-9-1964, of Shri Rastogi, another Magistrate under S. 148 of the Code. The order in the proceeding under S. 145 of the Criminal P. C. was passed on 31-1-1963 and thereafter the first party filed an application for award of cost on the 6th of March, 1963. The total amount of costs awarded by the Magistrate was Rs. 4,771/-. According to the Additional Sessions Judge the amount was unreasonable and the first party should have been allowed only Rs. 2,250.00 as costs. 2. Mr. Shivanandan Roy appearing in support of the reference urged a ground not mentioned in the letter of reference that Shri Hussain could not pass any order as to costs. He relied in support of his contention on S. 148 sub-sec. (3) of the Criminal P. C., which says that only the Magistrate passing the decision under Ss. 145, 146 or 147 of the Code may direct the payment of costs. There appears to be no substance in this contention inasmuch as that it was Shri Rastogi himself who had passed the order under S. 145 of the Code, directed for payment of cost and Shri Hussain merely asertained the amount. In the case of Sarju Prasad Sao V/s. Ramachandra Singh reported in AIR 1959 Pat 151 it was held that under S. 148 (3) of the Code the direction for one party or the other to pay the cost and to pay it in whole or in part or in a certain proportion must be given by the Magistrate passing the decision under S. 145 or the other Sections of Chap. XII of the Code and there was nothing in this provision to show that even the actual assessment cannot be made by another Magistrate. It was further held in that case that the successor Magistrate can under S. 559 (1) do the actual work of assessment of cost in accordance with the direction of the Magistrate who passed the final order under S. 145 or other Sections of that Chapter. It was further held in that case that the successor Magistrate can under S. 559 (1) do the actual work of assessment of cost in accordance with the direction of the Magistrate who passed the final order under S. 145 or other Sections of that Chapter. Shri Rastogi in his order dated 19-9-1964, said that the prayer of the petitioner that is the first party regarding the cost was reasonable and was allowed. Thereby he intended to order that the first party were entitled to all the costs they could prove to have incurred. If Shri Hussain has really reduced any amount claimed by the first party, the third party or second party cannot make any grievance of it. The order of Shri Hussain therefore assuming the amount of cost cannot be held to be illegal. 3. It was next contended by Mr. Roy that an order for payment of cost must be passed at the time of passing of the final order under S. 145 of the Code and since Shri Rastogi did not pass any order for costs at that time, his order dated 19-9-1964 allowing costs to the first party was itself illegal. There is nothing under S. 148 (3) to show that order for costs must be passed at the time of passing of the final order under S. 145 of the Code. There is a divergence of judicial opinion on this point, some decisions holding that the order for costs must be passed at the time of passing of the final order under S. 145 or other sections of the Code, others holding that it should be passed within reasonable time. In cases there it was intended by the framers of the Code that some consequential order should be passed at the time of the passing of the main order itself they have specifically said so in the Code. Reference may be made in this connection to S. 250 of the Criminal P. C., according to which show cause notice for payment of compensation must be issued by the order of discharge or acquittal itself. Therefore the decisions which have taken the view that order for payment of costs under S. 148 (3) of the Code can be passed within reasonable time appears to be correct. Therefore the decisions which have taken the view that order for payment of costs under S. 148 (3) of the Code can be passed within reasonable time appears to be correct. The Magistrate in the instant case appears to have passed an order for costs after twenty months but the first party ware not to be blamed for that. They made their application within the two months of the final order under S. 145 of the Code and they cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the laches on the part of the Magistrate in passing the necessary order on their petition. There is yet another difficulty in the way of the second party and the third party on this point. They did not go up to the higher Courts against the order dated 19-9-1964, and they cannot be allowed to challenge that order now. 4. Mr. Rajgarhia appearing for the first party attempted to show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not correct in observing that the costs assumed by Shri Hussain were unreasonable but he failed to do so. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have taken a correct view of the matter and he has rightly observed that the amount of costs assumed by Shri Hussain was high and unreasonable and the amount should have been Rs. 2,250.00 only. I entirely agree with the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in support of his view in his letter of reference. There can be no doubt that the claim of the 1st party was exaggerated. 5. For the foregoing reasons the reference is accepted and the amount of costs awarded by Shri Hussain by his order dated 14-2-1966, is reduced from Rs. 4,771/- to Rs. 2,250.00.