KRISHANLAL MAGANLAL VYAS Vs. GANESHBHARTHI JASVANT BHARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision application is the Food Inspector. Sidhpur Municipality in Sidhpur town of Mehsana District. The first respondent is original accused No. 1 and the second respondent is the original accused No. 2 in the case instituted on a complaint filed by the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sidhpur and the third respondent is the State of Gujarat. This criminal revision accusation has been filed by the petitioner against the order by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directed the Petitioner to pay compensation to accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 50.00 to each of the two accused. this order was passed under sec 250 sub-sec. (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973.

(2.) The facts leading to this criminal revision application are that in his capacity as Food Inspector the petitioner took sample of milk on 23/03/1976 at about 8-30 a. m. on a public road in Sidhpur town The petitioner at that time took the sample from one person who gave his name as Ishwarbhai Mahadevbhai Rabari and after all formalities were over regarding the sample he sent it for analysis and ultimately filed a complainant against that individual Ishwarbhai Mahadevbhai Rabari. At the time when the sample was taken the person who gave his name as Ishwarbhai Mahadevbhai Rabari stated that he was merely an employee of accused No. 1 Ganeshbharthi Jasvantbharthi a resident of Sidhpur and on the basis of that statement accused No. 1 was also joined as a co-accused in the case instituted by the petitioner. Ultimately it transpired when the case reached hearing that the person from whom the sample was taken on 23/03/1976 was not Ishwarbhai Mahadevbhai Rabari but some other individual and ultimately after making inquiries through the surety on whose surety bond the person who gave his name as Ishwarbhai Mahadevbhai Rabari was released on bail was contacted and it was ascertained that Tharkada Chatarji Jivaji who was subsequently brought before the Court as accused No. 2 and who is now appearing as respondent No. 2 in the present proceedings was the person from whom the sample was taken. Ultimately on merits of the ease the learned Magistrate acquitted the two accused. I am not concerned in this ease with the merits of that order of acquittal. However under see. 250 sub-see. (2) the learned Magistrate proceeded against the Food Inspector and directed him to pay an amount of Rs. 50.00 to each of the two accused as compensation.

(3.) Under see. 250 sub-sec. (1)