P. Veerappa Naidu vs Avudayammal And Ors. on 16 October, 1924

Madras High Court
P. Veerappa Naidu vs Avudayammal And Ors. on 16 October, 1924
Equivalent citations: (1925) 48 MLJ 106


1. We are agreed in thinking that the question whether the High Court, when exercising its powers of Criminal Revision, has inherent power to award costs to the successful party, has been settled by the decision of the Full Bench in Sankaralingam Mudaliar v. Narayana Mudaliar (1922) I L K 45 M 913 : 43 MLJ 369 (FB). Meanwhile the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code has not made any difference, since the Legislature has not acted upon the suggestion thrown out by Coutts-Trotter, J., who sat upon the abovementioned Full Bench, that in order to check the activities of private prosecutors in revision proceedings the Court should be invested with power in proper cases to award costs. It is true that Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the inherent power of the High Court is new. But as observed by the learned Chief Justice in Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Narayana Mudaliar (1922) I L K 45 M 913 : 43 MLJ 369 (FB), the Court cannot by invoking its inherent powers extend the powers given to it by Statute.. Nor can the award of costs be treated as incidental or consequential to the disposal of the revision petition within the meaning of Section 423 (1922) I L K 45 M 913 : 43 MLJ 369 (FB) (d), for it does not necessarily follow from an order passed in revision [compare Mehi Singh v. Mangal Khandu (1911) ILR 39 C 157 (FB)].

2. Magistrates have power under Section 148 to direct by whom any costs incurred by parties in proceedings before them under Chapter XII are to be paid, but the costs referred to in this section are evidently the costs incurred in the magisterial proceedings. When the High Court sits in revision, it is not exercising the powers of a Magistrate under this Chapter and therefore the costs in the revision proceedings cannot be included under this head.

3. We consider that Wallace, J., who made this reference was right in holding that he had no power to make an order for costs in the two petitions which were before him and they will therefore be returned to him with our opinion for passing the necessary orders.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information