AVENKATARAMIAH Vs. CHANNIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed against an order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Dodballapur in C.C. No. 233/54 on his file directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 5/- to each of the three respondents after acquitting them in the case.

(2.) The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 352 of the Penal Code into the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Dodballapur and the same was registered as C. C. No. 233/54. The respondents who were served with summons appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty to the charge that was read over and explained to them. The complainant and two witnesses were examined and the case for the petitioner was closed. The respondents examined two witnesses on their behalf and closed their case. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate came to the conclusion that no case was made out against the respondents for any of the offences alleged against them and acquitted them. He was further of the opinion that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious and as such directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5/- to each of the respondents as compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal P. C. It is against this order directing payment of compensation that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Sri Y. Adinarayana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the correctness of the order of the learned Munsiff-Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay compensation to the respondents on two grounds. He contended that the order of the learned Munsiff-Magistrate directing payment of compensation to the respondents without examining all the witnesses cited by the petitioner was illegal and was quite contrary to the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal P. C. He also contended that the order was illegal on account of the fact that the learned Munsiff-Magistrate had not issued any notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the respondents since his complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious and thus afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to prove that his complaint was not false or vexatious or frivolous, before passing an order. Section 250 of the Criminal P. C., reads thus: