State of U.P. v. Nitin Agnihotri , (SC) BS144893
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. Arijit Pasayat and H.S. Bedi, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1126 Of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3666 of 2006). D/d. 21.7.2008.

State of U.P. and Anr. - Appellants

Versus

Nitin Agnihotri and Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG with Sahdev Singh Gunnam Venkateswara Rao and Ms. Vibha Dwivedi, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- Siddharth Bambha, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, K. Krishna Kumar and Anish Kumar Gupta, Advocates.

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 357 - Imposition of cost by court - Courts should not impose cost without recording any finding as to why imposition of cost was considered necessary - Unless any lapse on the part of any authority is found and opportunity is granted to the alleged erring official, cost should not be imposed - Whenever it is felt that cost is to be imposed, the reason for such a conclusion has to be recorded.

[Para 6]

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 4120 (M/B) of 2005.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the police authorities had investigated into the matter on the basis of the complaint. They were performing their duties and have recorded the statements of various persons. The High Court did not notice any lapse on the part of the authorities and yet directed imposition of cost as aforesaid.

5. We find that the impugned order of the High Court so far as it relates to the imposition of cost is founded on no basis. There is not even a finding recorded that the police officials were remiss in any way and/or had committed any lapse during investigation. In the absence of any reason having been indicated by the High Court as to why the Court felt necessary for imposing cost, the direction for payment of cost cannot be sustained and is set aside.

6. Before parting with the case, we would like to indicate that the courts should not impose cost in the manner done in the present case without recording any finding as to why imposition of cost was considered necessary. Unless any lapse on the part of any authority is found and opportunity is granted to the alleged erring official, cost should not be imposed. Whenever it is felt that cost is to be imposed, the reason for such a conclusion has to be recorded.

7. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.