ALOK K. SINGH, J. Heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned A. G. A. and perused record. 2. By means of this petition under sections 482, 483, 397 (1) and 401 Cr. P. C. two orders passed by the Court below dated 27. 5. 2008 and 3. 6. 2008 have been challenged. 3. From the perusal of the first im pugned order dated 27. 5. 2008 (Annexure-4) it transpires that in the murder trial pending before the Court below for the last three years wherein prosecution evidence was about to conclude (S. T. No. 47/05 un der sections 147, 148, 302, 504. 506 and 120-B I. P. C.) and the last prosecution witness Gorakh Singh was in attendance on a par ticular date but in stead of cross- examining him an application was moved by the de fence praying for adjournment for 3. 6. 2008 on the ground that Counsel Sri Ved Prakash Pandey had some problem in his left leg while wife of another Counsel Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh was not feeling well and, therefore, he has gone to Lucknow with her. The learned lower Court after hearing arguments observed that there were other counsels also and the applica tion for adjournment has been moved with a view to protract and prolong the hearing. Still keeping in view that both the advo cates are practicing in district Sultanpur, one last opportunity for cross-examination of witness Gorakh Singh was accorded on payment of Rs. 15000/- as cost to be de posited within two days in the treasury. It is submitted that the cost was deposited accordingly and on 3. 6. 2008 witness Gorakh Singh has also been cross-examined. Learned Counsel for the appli cant submits that there is no specific provi sion in the entire Code of Criminal Proce dure under which such cost could have been imposed. Be that as it may. But as per long established practice and also keeping in view the principles enunciated in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of a particular case if cost is imposed in the ends of justice, as in the instant, case the same would be con strued to have been done under the inher ent powers of the Court for administering fair and speedy justice. However, such cost should be realistic, and as far as possible, the actual cost, which had to be incurred by the other party, where the adjournment being sought is found to be avoidable. 4. In respect of seeking an adjourn ment the learned Counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the case of Rais Ah mad v. State of U. P. and others, (1999) 6 SCC 391 (before Honble Mr. Justice S. Sagir Ahmad and Honble Mr. Justice D. P. Wadhwa ). This case pertains to practice and procedure in respect of the cases pending in the High Court and not in the District Courts. Ac cording to the facts of this case the learned Counsel had obtained permission of the Chief Justice under the High Court Rules for adjournment of his all cases pending in the High Court up to certain dates. Writ petition in question was, however, listed very next day and though the Counsel sent an illness slip but that was not brought to the notice of the Court by the Bench Secre tary. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on merits. The Honble Apex Court held that in the case not having been adjourned, the result was serious miscar riage of justice and the High Court erred in not allowing application for recall of the order of dismissal. It was also observed that the High Court was duty bound to give effect to an order of Honble the Chief Justice allowing the application seeking adjournment by not listing the case of that Counsel concerned before the Court. However, if such a case is listed by mistake, the litigant or Counsel cannot he made to suf fer. It was also observed that there is spe cial significance of illness slip as per long traditions which bind in relation of mutual trust between Judiciary and Bar. But this case law deals with only the High Court Rules, and the established practice and procedure followed in the High Court where the cases are listed by Registry. But these rules i. e. the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have no application in the sub ordinate Courts. There is also no such es tablished practice or procedure of illness slip there. Moreover in the lower Court the cases are listed by the Presiding Officer of the Court itself and not by any Registry. But these rules i. e. the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have no application in the sub ordinate Courts. There is also no such es tablished practice or procedure of illness slip there. Moreover in the lower Court the cases are listed by the Presiding Officer of the Court itself and not by any Registry. Moreover, the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are different. Further in the aforesaid case Honble Chief Justice had already allowed the application of a particular Counsel for a particular period and therefore his case should not have been listed. But by mistake this case was listed and the illness slip given by the Counsel, was also not brought to the notice of the Court by the Bench Secretary. Whereas in the case in hand, there were no such facts and circumstances and therefore this case law is not applicable in the present case. 5. Therefore, it can be concluded that an adjournment is not a right of a party. It has to be on showing special and extra or dinary circumstances and cannot be a rou tine at least in the cases pending before the lower Courts. 6. However, in view of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case as mentioned herein above in para 3 of this judgment the imposition of amount of Rs. 15, 000/- as costs appears to be exorbitant. Therefore, by invoking inherent powers of this Court, the aforesaid impugned order so far it relates to imposition of cost, is partly modified and the cost is reduced to a notional amount of Rs. 1000/- The remain ing amount of Rs. 14, 000/- shall be re turned to the depositor (accused ). As the cross-examination of witness Gorakh Singh has already been conducted the remaining part of the order shall remain intact and no further order is required in the matter. 7. As far as the second impugned order i. e. dated 3. 6. 2008 is concerned learned Counsel for the applicant submits that ignoring the provisions of section 312 Cr. P. C. the learned Court below has di rected the defence to deposit an amount of Rs. 4000/- as expenses in respect of ballistic expert who was to be examined as defence witness on the request of defence. Learned Counsel for the applicant also places reli ance on the following two case laws: - 1. P. C. the learned Court below has di rected the defence to deposit an amount of Rs. 4000/- as expenses in respect of ballistic expert who was to be examined as defence witness on the request of defence. Learned Counsel for the applicant also places reli ance on the following two case laws: - 1. Make Alam v. State of U. P. and others 2005 Cri. LJ 4554. 2. Parmatma v. State of U. P. (Cri. Misc. Application No. 3171 of 2002 De cided on 21. 11. 2002 by Hon. S. S. Kulshrestha, J.) 8. In the case of Parmatma (supra) taking a clue from another case namely G. Thirnpaliah v. State 1966 Cri. LJ 746 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it was held that expenses of defence witness should be borne by the State and not by the accused. Finally, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was directed to summon the defence witness on State expenses. 9. In the case of Make Aalam (supra) it was observed that the Court should not direct the accused to pay the expenses of the defence witness. 10. The provisions of section 312 Cr. P. C. upon which tlie learned Counsel for applicant has placed reliance is as un der: - "312. Expenses of complainants and wit nesses.- Subject to any rules made by the State Government, any Criminal Court may, if it thinks fit, order payment, on the part of Gov ernment, of the reasonable ex penses of any complainant or wit ness attending for the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceed ing before such Court under this Code. " 11. If we go through the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the examining defence witness, it would be interesting to note that though in respect of the summon trial and warrant trial pending before the Magistrate the discretion has been given to the Magistrate and he may before summoning any witness on an application of the defence, require that rea sonable expenses be deposited in the Court. But in the case of Sessions Trial no such discretion has been given to the learned Sessions Judge. This scheme can be under stood by reading the relevant provisions carefully which are extracted herein below. 12. Trial of warrant case has been dealt with under Chapter XIX of Criminal Procedure Code and section 243 Cr. But in the case of Sessions Trial no such discretion has been given to the learned Sessions Judge. This scheme can be under stood by reading the relevant provisions carefully which are extracted herein below. 12. Trial of warrant case has been dealt with under Chapter XIX of Criminal Procedure Code and section 243 Cr. P. C. deals with evidence for defence in cases instituted on a police report. The provisions of section 243 Cr. P. C. are as under - Evidence for defence.- (1) "the accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magis trate shall file it with the record. (2) If the accused, after he has entered, upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of exami nation or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall is sue such process unless he consider that such application should be re fused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or de lay or for defeating the ends of jus tice and such ground shall be re corded by him in writing: Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the oppor tunity of cross-examining any wit ness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice. (3) The Magistrate may, before sum moning any witness on an applica tion under sub-section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be de posited in Court. " 13. Similarly, in respect of the warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report the relevant section dealing with the defence is section 427 of Cr. P. C. which is as under: - "247. Evidence for defence.- The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and the provisions of section 243 shall apply to the case. " 14. Then Chapter XX deals with the trial of summons cases by Magistrate and the relevant section on the point is section 254 Cr. P. C. which is as under - "254. " 14. Then Chapter XX deals with the trial of summons cases by Magistrate and the relevant section on the point is section 254 Cr. P. C. which is as under - "254. Procedure when not convicted - (1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 252 or sec tion 253, the Magistrate shall pro ceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to here the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. (2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prose cution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. (3) The Magistrate may, before sum moning any witness on such appli cation, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court. " 15. Thus, in ail the cases triable by Magistrate a discretion has been given to him to get the expenses of the witness de posited in the Court before summoning that witness. 16. But in the wisdom of the legisla ture this discretion has not been given to the Sessions Judge in respect of the cases triable by the Court of Sessions as in the present case. The object is clear and bold. The cases triable by Sessions are of heinous nature in which more stringent punishment is provided. As such, the statutory right of defence becomes more significant and im portant. Therefore, with a view that this statutory right may not gel frustrated or diluted, the discretion for requiring depo sition of reasonable expenses as a condition precedent for summoning a defence wit ness has been done away with consciously in respect of cases of grave nature triable by Sessions. However, the Sessions Judge may refuse such prayer only on the ground if it appears to has been made for the pur pose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice. But the reason for the same has to be recorded. These provisions are contained under section 233 Cr. However, the Sessions Judge may refuse such prayer only on the ground if it appears to has been made for the pur pose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice. But the reason for the same has to be recorded. These provisions are contained under section 233 Cr. P. C. Chap ter XVIII which are as under: - "entering upon defence.- (1) Where the accused is not acquitted under sec tion 232, he shall he called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in sup port thereof. (2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record. (3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. " 17. Thus, from a study of the afore said provisions relating to the summoning of defence witness it is clear that as far as the Sessions Trial is concerned the provi sions of the Code stands on the same foot ing in respect of summoning the prosecu tion witness viz-a-viz defence witness and there is no difference. In other words like prosecution witnesses the defence witness in the sessions case are also to be sum moned at the expenses of the State. The only rider is that such a request made by defence can be rejected if the learned Ses sions Judge finds that the request has been made for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice. A Sessions Court may also take recourse in this regard to the enabling provision envisaged in sec tion 312 Cr. P. C. quoted hereinbefore. Al most similar view has been taken in the following case laws: - 1. Make Alam v. State of U. P. and oth ers, 2005 Cri. LJ 4554. 2. Raghuveer Dayal Saxena v. State of Orissa, 1957 Cri. LJ 148 (Ori ). 3. Chaudhary Venkat Swami Rao v. State ofandhra Pradesh, 1979 Cri. LJ 255 (AP ). 4. T. N. Janardhanan Pillai v. State, 1992 Cri. LJ 436 (Ker. ). 5. Make Alam v. State of U. P. and oth ers, 2005 Cri. LJ 4554. 2. Raghuveer Dayal Saxena v. State of Orissa, 1957 Cri. LJ 148 (Ori ). 3. Chaudhary Venkat Swami Rao v. State ofandhra Pradesh, 1979 Cri. LJ 255 (AP ). 4. T. N. Janardhanan Pillai v. State, 1992 Cri. LJ 436 (Ker. ). 5. Debi Singh v. King Emperor. AIR1924 Patna 142. 18. Therefore, in view of the above, the second impugned order dated 3. 6. 2008 so far it relates to a direction to deposit Rs. 4, 000/- in lump sum as expenses in respect of defence witness i. e. the ballistic expert, deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. Learned Court below may pass appropriate orders afresh in this regard keeping in view the aforesaid observations. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition Disposed Of. .