1. Salek Chand was an accused person in a criminal Court. He asked for an adjournment in order to enable him to apply to the High Court for transfer. The Magistrate adjourned the case on condition that a sum of Rs. 20 was paid by way of costs. Under Section 344, Criminal P.C., a Magistrate may adjourn a case on such terms as he thinks fit but this particular adjournment was one which was covered by the provisions of Section 526, Sub-section (8), Criminal P.C., and the Court had to grant it. It is true that the explanation to Sub-section (9) says that nothing contained in Sub-section (8) or Sub-section (9) restricts the powers of a Court under Section 344, but at the same time it is difficult to see how a Court can impose terms for granting an adjournment when it is bound to grant that adjournment whether the terms are accepted or not. It has been held in Sorabji M. Shrofi v. Erachshaw B. Katrak 1932 56 Bom 536 that costs should not be imposed in a case of this kind. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference that the order for costs should be set aside. I accept the reference and direct that orders shall issue accordingly.