Judgment M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions have been moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the similar orders of the Additional Sessions judge, Bali dated November 16, 1987 by which he granted last opportunity for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and awarded Rs. 1000/- each as costs to the accused persons in Sessions Trials Nos. 53/85 and 1/85 of his court. The facts of the cases giving rise to these Petitions may be summarised thus. ( 2 ) IN the aforesaid Sessions trials, the accused-respondents were committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali. In both the cases, the Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Manohar Singh Advocate appearing in his court disclosed on July 15, 1986 and Aug. 25, 1986 respectively that he would not be able to conduct the cases on behalf of the State as he had been the counsel for the accused-persons. The same day, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali directed Shri Manohar Singh, A. P. P. to get a Special Public Prosecutor appointed for the cases and he also moved the District Magistrate, Bali and the Law Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for this purpose. Till November 16, 1987, no Special Public Prosecutor was appointed. As a result thereof, no progress took place in the cases and the accused-persons unnecessarily attended the court on seven dates fixed during the period. Ultimately, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali passed the aforesaid orders on November 16, 1987 which have been challenged in these Petitions. ( 3 ) THE Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge seriously erred in awarding the costs against the Government, the court could refuse adjournment and proceed further with the cases and it had no power to impose the cost. He also contended that in March, 1988, the Government has appointed A. P. P. I as a Special Public Prosecutor for these cases. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the charges were not framed in both the cases till November 16, 1987. It is clear from the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code that no trial before a court of Sessions can proceed without a Public Prosecutor. His presence is necessary. The order appointing the Assistant Public Prosecutor I dated March 11, 1988 could easily be passed long before this date. It is clear from the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code that no trial before a court of Sessions can proceed without a Public Prosecutor. His presence is necessary. The order appointing the Assistant Public Prosecutor I dated March 11, 1988 could easily be passed long before this date. The learned Public Prosecutor has utterly failed to show as to what prevented the authorities to pass it earlier. Rule 43, General Rules (Criminal), 1980 requires that a session trial shall not be adjourned or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 309 of the Code runs as follows :- (2) If the court, after taking cognisance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, 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 ) ITS Explanation-II states as under :- explanation 2 The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused. These provisions leave no doubt that in appropriate cases adjournment may be granted on payment of costs. ( 6 ) SECTION 482 of the Code runs as under :-"482.- Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. "it is very much doubtful that the present petitions lie under the above quoted provisions. As already observed above, the impugned orders have been passed under Section 309 (2) of the Code. No order under Section 482 of the Code can be passed for setting aside such an order. An order under this Section may be passed which may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent any abuse of the process of the court or other-wise to secure the ends of justice. No order under Section 482 of the Code can be passed for setting aside such an order. An order under this Section may be passed which may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent any abuse of the process of the court or other-wise to secure the ends of justice. The Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned orders to prevent repeated adjournments and to get early appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to commence the trials without further delay. As a matter of fact, order annulling the impugned orders would be against the prompt disposal of sessions cases and also against the interest of justice. ( 7 ) IN such a situation, the Addl. Sessions Judge should not have insisted upon the personal attendance of all the accused persons on each and every date fixed during the said period. The personal attendance of all accused except one could be dispensed with u/s 317 (1) of the Code. No useful purpose was being served by their presence on these dates. If their personal attendance would have been dispensed with, the said amounts of costs awarded to them could have been reduced. ( 8 ) AFTER the enforcement of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Part-IVA and Article 51-A were added to the Constitution of India and the fundamental duties had been specified. It is now the duty of every citizen of India to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. To say the least, this constitutional mandate has been observed in its branch by the concerned authorities than in its observance. The petitions deserve to be dismissed. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the petitions are summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.