Criminal costs to accused and recovery by imprisonment cannot be ordered without statutory authority

A Metropolitan Magistrate lacks statutory authority to reimburse an accused for attendance costs arising from an adjournment sought by the prosecution; costs in criminal proceedings may be imposed only as permitted by law, and the recognised power concerns costs payable in accordance with the Code, not reimbursement to an accused. Section 67 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies to imprisonment in default of payment of fine and cannot be used to recover such costs. The order directing reimbursement and enforcement through imprisonment was therefore without jurisdiction and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a Metropolitan Magistrate had power to award costs to the accused for attending court proceedings on account of an adjournment sought by the prosecution; (ii) whether Section 67 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be invoked to direct imprisonment for recovery of such costs.

Issue (i): whether a Metropolitan Magistrate had power to award costs to the accused for attending court proceedings on account of an adjournment sought by the prosecution

Analysis: The power to impose costs in criminal proceedings is not an inherent power of the Metropolitan Magistrate. Under the criminal procedure framework, costs may be imposed only in the manner permitted by law, and the recognized power relates to costs payable to witnesses for attendance, not reimbursement to an accused for attending proceedings. If an adjournment is sought on unreasonable grounds, costs may be imposed to discourage adjournments, but such costs are payable in accordance with law and not as reimbursement to the accused.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no authority to direct reimbursement of attendance costs to the accused.

Issue (ii): whether Section 67 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be invoked to direct imprisonment for recovery of such costs

Analysis: Section 67 applies only where an offence is punishable with fine only and authorizes imprisonment in default of payment of fine. It does not provide a mechanism for recovery of costs awarded in the manner attempted by the Magistrate. Where the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the mode for recovery of costs, resort to Section 67 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is impermissible.

Conclusion: Section 67 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not be used for recovery of the costs in question.

Final Conclusion: The order directing the prosecution to reimburse costs to the accused and enforcing recovery through imprisonment was without jurisdiction and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal court cannot, in the absence of statutory authority, award attendance costs to an accused as reimbursement, and a penal provision governing default in payment of fine cannot be used to recover such costs.

---