1984 PLP 455 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the imposition of costs by the Sind High Court while dismissing their Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 862 of 1981 and 1316 of 1981.

2. The first‑mentioned application had been filed under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. in respect of a proceeding, which, according to the petitioners, was pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Shahdadpur, under section 145, Cr. P. C. A stay of the proceeding had also been obtained on the basis of that assertion. However, after the Mukhtiarkar concerned was examined and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 18‑10‑1981 which had resulted in the attachment of copy was produced, it turned out that there was in fact no proceeding under section 145 or under any other provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but that the matter was being dealt with on the revenue side. It was for this reason that the learned Judge of the High Court held: "I see no force in this contention of the learned Advocate for the applicants, to say the least the applicants have suppressed the true facts from this Court in the above application and have obtained the orders for admission of the above application on a representation that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. were pending against them, in which the lands in question have been attached". The learned Judge, therefore, while dismissing the application imposed costs in the total sum, of Rs. 2,000 to be paid by the petitioners.

3. The other application was for action against the Assistant Commis sioner under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, which, for the same reason, was found to be without merit and was accordingly dismissed and costs of Rs. 500 payable to the Mukhtiarkar and the Supervising Tapedar, each, was awarded against the petitioners.

4. The contention is that "there is no provision of law in Criminal Procedure Code under which costs can be awarded ". The award of costs is not alien to the criminal jurisprudence. There are situations where costs are awarded; such as under section 148(3), Cr. P. C. The High Court can also impose costs under section 491(2), Cr. P. C. as provided under rule 17 (previously rule 10) of the High Court Rules and Orders, Chapter 4‑F, Volume V, which reads :‑‑ "In disposing of any such rule the Court may in its discretion take an order for the payment by one side or the other of the costs of the rule." Section 547, Cr. P. C. deals with recovery of moneys other than fine.

5. Section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., under which the first application had been moved, empowers the Court "to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". As the applications had been found to be based upon misrepre sentation, a stay order had been obtained and the concerned officials had been summoned, the High Court was justified in taking the view that the petitioners were guilty of abuse of the process of the Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere. The petition is dismissed. S.Q Petition dismissed.