NARAYANAN Vs. KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition complained to the Police that accused 1 to 5 and fifteen others committed theft of livestock, agricultural produce and implements worth Rs. 873/- from the land in his possession and the huts thereon. The police sent up a report that the allegations were false. Thereupon the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Second Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. As there was undue delay in the disposal of the case, the District Magistrate, Quilon, transferred the case to his file and tried it. Holding that the complaint was false and vexatious, he discharged the accused and ordered the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the four surviving accused. The complainant who was present in court when the judgment was delivered stated that the complaint was true and that the witnesses had turned hostile as he had evicted them from the property during the trial of the case. The District Magistrate did not accept this explanation and he ordered the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 150- to each of the accused as compensation under S.250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, this order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quilon. The complainant has therefore preferred this criminal revision petition.

(2.) S.250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: when the Magistrate discharges or acquits all or any of the accused and is of opinion that the accusation was false and either frivolous or vexatious, he can direct the complainant to pay compensation to the accused. Before considering the facts of this case the scope of the section may be examined.

(3.) In Emperor v. Kouro and others (47 I. C. 733), a Bench of the. Sind Judicial Commissioners Court held that a complainant cannot be said to have made a false complaint where he acted on the information supplied to him by another person and which he did not know or believe to be false or vexatious. It was also held that an accusation cannot be said to be vexatious within the meaning of S.250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the main intention of the complainant was to cause annoyance to the person accused and not merely to further the ends of justice. This decision was followed by Harrison, J., in the Municipal Committee, Simla v. Mukand Singh ( AIR 1926 Lah. 365 ). Compensation was refused in that case as it was not established that the object in instituting the proceedings was primarily to annoy the accused.