JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous application is directed against the order dated 9.8.82 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) Jaipur in case No. 13/80. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that on the date fixed for examining the prosecution witness the petitioner requested the trial court to adjourn the case on the ground that his counsel suddenly fell ill. On that date three prosecution witnesses were examined by the Court. The learned trial court allowed the prayer f the applicant and directed that the applicant shall pay the expenses of the witness present in court. Aggrieved by this direction, this miscellaneous application has been preferred. 2. This is a settled principle of law that inherent powers of this court are to be invoked sparingly and in the rear out of the rare cases. In the instant case, the request of the applicant for adjournment was allowed, but because the prosecution witnesses were present in court and because of the adjournment they were to come again to the court, the trial court thought it proper that the expenses should be incurred by the applicant. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court. The accused-applicant is not at all prejudiced by the impugned order. Awarding of expenses is the discretion of the court and the trial court exercised its discretion. Where the subordinate court exercises its discretion, inherent powers should not be invoked in such cases. 3. Therefore, this miscellaneous application is dismissed.Application dismissed. *******