PRABHAKARAN Vs. SUKUMARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision raises a short and interesting point in regard to the construction to be placed on sub-section (2) of S. 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974 ).

(2.) THE first respondent was prosecuted by the revision petitioner for an offence under S. 418 of the Indian Penal Code. In this revision we are not really concerned with the details of the prosecution case or the evidence adduced in support of it. THE learned Magistrate, having found that the complainant (revision petitioner) had failed to make out a prima facie case of an offence under S. 418 I. P. C. , passed an order discharging the accused (1st respondent) under S. 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Para. 7 of the order of discharge ends as follows: "i am of opinion that there is no reasonable ground for making the accusation against the accused by the complainant and I find that this is a fit case for action, under S. 250 Crl. P. C. THE complainant is called upon to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. " Order passed by the learned Magistrate under sub-s. (2)of S. 250 Crl. P. G. in the further proceedings reads as follows: "the complainant is present and he is given an opportunity to state whether he has any explanation to offer why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused. He is questioned and his statement recorded. He says that correct evidence is adduced by him against the accused. THE explanation offered by the complainant is not satisfactory and he has no reasonable explanation to offer for the malicious prosecution against the accused in this case. THE complainant is ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 500/-m default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. THE amount of compensation, If realised will be paid to Sukumaran Nair accused in C. C. 35/70 as compensation as provided in S. 250 (2) Crl. P. C. " Against the order of the learned Magistrate the complainant (revision petitioner) filed an appeal and a revision. THE learned sessions Judge, while upholding the order of discharge and the conclusion of the learned Magistrate that it was a fit case in which the complainant was to be ordered to pay compensation to the accused, reduced the amount of compensation to be paid from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 150/ -.

(3.) IF what is stated above could be treated as guideline for interpreting the provisions of sub-section (2) of S. 250 Crl. P. C. , I am of the view that the Magistrate ought to have after having recorded and considered the statement of the complainant or the informant when he was called upon to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused under subsection (1) of S. 250, considered the whole materials placed before him afresh to satisfy himself whether there was reasonable ground for the complainant or the informant to make the accusation, and it is only where he has satisfied himself that there was no such reasonable ground, and for reasons to be recorded, that the Magistrate could have passed an order directing the complainant or the informant to pay compensation to the accused. In as much as such procedure is not seen to have been strictly observed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge while passing the orders impugned in this revision, they are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate passed under sub-section (2) of S. 250 Crl. P. C. , modified by the learned Sessions Judge, is set aside. Amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner towards compensation shall be refunded to him. Allowed. . .