1. This application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, has been pressed only in respect of an order of costs passed by the District Judge of Allahabad on an appeal under Section 476B, Criminal P.C. It is contended that on such an appeal he had no jurisdiction to award costs. Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to an unreported decision by a learned single Judge of this Court in Amir Jan v. Chandra Bhan Civil Revn. No. 82 of 1939. Belying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bholanath v. Purna Chandra ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 548 and a decision of the Punjab Chief Court in Bishen Das v. Rahmat Khan ('15) 2 A.I.R. 1915 Lah. 440 the learned Judge held that a Court has no power to direct payment of costs in proceedings connected with applications for sanction to prosecute, though taken in a civil Court. For the opposite party it was pointed out that when orders are passed in appeal under Section 476B by a Civil Court, they can be challenged in revision under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or, as in the present case, under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The case cited in support of this was Surendranath v. Sushilkumar : AIR1931Cal604 . I do not think it follows from the fact that such an appellate order passed by a civil Court can be challenged in revision under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, that costs can be awarded. The procedure no doubt varies according to whether the appellate order is passed by a civil Court or a criminal Court; that is to say, if passed by a civil Court, it can be challenged only under the Civil Procedure Code or Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, and if passed by a criminal Court, only under the Code of Criminal Procedure; but that, in my judgment, is no reason for holding that while costs cannot be awarded in the latter case they can in the former. It would be very anomalous that in proceedings of the same character, these proceedings being held under the Code of Criminal Procedure a civil Court should have power to award costs and a criminal Court not. It appears to me, therefore, if I may say so, that the view taken in Amir Jan v. Chandra Bhan Civil Revn. No. 82 of 1939, following the Calcutta and Punjab cases cited, was correct. I accordingly allow this application so far as it relates to the order passed by the District Judge awarding costs and I set aside that part of the order. Otherwise the application is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court. The order staying proceedings is discharged.