DAMODARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in P.E. No. 16/51 on the file of the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court at Trivandrum is the petitioner. At the close of the preliminary inquiry in the case, the learned Magistrate discharged the two accused under S.209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By a separate order the Magistrate directed the complainant to pay Rs. 50 each to the two accused by way of compensation. The appeal preferred by the complainant against that order proved unsuccessful and he has therefore come up in revision, questioning the legality of the order passed by the Magistrate directing payment of compensation to the two accused. That order is challenged mainly on two grounds viz., (1) that in passing the order the Magistrate was acting without jurisdiction and (2) that the order is bad in so far as it does not satisfy the requirements of sub-s. 2 of S.250 of the Code. On hearing the learned advocates appearing on both sides, I am satisfied that both these grounds are well founded and have to prevail. Before stating my reasons in support of that conclusion, the facts which formed the basis of the enquiry before the learned Magistrate may briefly be stated.

(2.) The 2nd accused in the case is the eldest son of the complainant and the latter's friend and associate is the 1st accused. Besides the 2nd accused, the complainant has two other children, Jagadamma and Sasidharan, aged 15 and 12 respectively at the time of the complaint in this case. After the death of the mother of these children, the complainant married another lady who has been examined as PW 8 in the case. The two minor children were living with the complainant and his second wife. According to the complainant, when he was away from the house the 2nd accused together with the 1st accused decoyed the two children from the house at about 7.30 PM on 31.1.1951 and kept them in secret confinement with the object of misappropriating the jewels worn by these children. On these allegations the complaint was preferred against the two accused for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.366, 368 and 403 of the Penal Code. Since the offence of kidnapping punishable under S.366 is one exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the Magistrate took the case on to his file as P.E. case and proceeded with the inquiry for finding out whether there is a case justifying an order committing the accused for trial before a Sessions Court. At the close of such an inquiry the Magistrate came to the conclusion that no such case was made out by the evidence adduced by the complainant and accordingly passed an order under S.209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure discharging both the accused. The complainant was then called upon to show cause why compensation should not be ordered to be paid to the accused and after recording his statement, the Magistrate passed the order which is impugned in this revision petition.

(3.) It is obvious from sub-s. 1 of S.250 that the jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate to direct the complainant to pay compensation to the accused person who are either discharged or acquitted, is confined to cases involving offences triable by him. This is made clear by the opening portion of the sub-s. 1 which states as follows:-