AKURATI RANGANAYAKULU Vs. GOLI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narasaraopet, setting aside the order made by the Sub-Magistrate, Chirala, directing the complainant to pay compensation of Rs. 50 to the accused under section 250(2), Criminal Procedure Code or to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days in default.

(2.) The facts lie in a small compass. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate under section 355, Penal Code, alleging that he beat him with the shoe of his right leg on his left cheek near the market. The Sub-Magistrate found on the evidence that the complaint was false and vexatious and, on that finding, discharged the accused under section 253 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. He also directed the complainant to pay compensation of Rs. 50 to the accused under section 250 (2), Criminal Procedure Code or to suffer simple imprisonment for thirty days in default. The complainant filed an appeal against the order directing him to pay compensation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narasaraopet. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without giving notice either to the State or to the complainant, reconsidered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show that the complaint was false and vexatious. On that finding, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order directing payment of compensation. The accused has preferred the above revision against that order.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr. Rama Rao, contends that no appeal lay against the order of the Sub-Magistrate directing payment of compensation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The question raised falls to be considered on a true construction of the provisions of sections 250 and 407 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. The material provisions of the said sections are as follows :- Section 250.-(3) A complainant or informant who has been ordered under sub-section (2) by a Magistrate of the second or third class to pay compensation or has been so ordered by any other Magistrate to pay compensation exceeding fifty rupees may appeal from the order in so far as the order relates to the payment of the compensation, as if such complainant or infomant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate. Section 407.-1. Any person convicted on a trial held by any Magistrate of the second or third class or any person sentenced under section 349 or in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 380 by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the second class may appeal to the District Magistrate. 2. The District Magistrate may direct that any appeal under this section, or any class of such appeals shall be heard by any Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him and empowered by the State Government to hear such appeal or class of appeals may be presented to such subordinate Magistrate, or if already presented to the District Magistrate, may be transferred to such subordinate Magistrate. The District Magistrate may withdraw from such Magistrate any appeal or class of appeals so presented or transferred. Under section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, a person convicted on a trial by any Magistrate of the second or the third class may appeal to the District Magistrate. Under sub-section (2), such an appeal can be presented to a Magistrate of the first class subordinate to the District Magistrate, if the District Magistrate directs that such an appeal may be heard by him and the State Government empowers him to do so. It is not disputed that the District Magistrate directed the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to hear appeals against convictions made by any Magistrate of the second or third class and that the State Government also empowered him to do so. Section 250 (3) confers a right of appal against the order of a Magistrate directing compensation to be paid to a complainant as if such a complainant had been convicted on a trial held by such a Magistrate. If the sub-sections of section 250 and section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code are read together, as they should be, it is manifest that the order directing payment of compensation by a second class Magistrate would be deemed to be conviction on a trial held by such Magistrate and, therefore, an appeal would lie against that order to the Magistrate under section 407 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. Section 407 (1) and (2) prescribes the forum of an appeal against convictions by any Magistrate of the second or the third class. Ordinarily, the appellate forum in such cases is the Court of the District Magistrate. But, if the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) are complied with, appeals can be presented against such convictions to a Magistrate of the first class subordinate to the District Magistrate, who is empowered to ntertain appeals under that sub-section. Section 250 (3) introduces a fiction and says that an appeal against an order of compensation will lie as if the complainant had been convicted on a trial held by such a Magistrate. There is no reason to confine the scope of the fiction to sub-section (1) of section 407. It does not say that an appeal lies under section 407 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. If so, it follows that an appeal lies against such an order to a Court to which an appeal against conviction by a Magistrate imposing an order of compensation lies. An appeal against the conviction by such a Magistrate can be presented to a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 407 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, an appeal against the order of compensation should be likewise presented to that Court. There cannot be and it is not suggested that there is, any principle on the basis of which the Legislature though fit that the appeal should be heard only by a District Magistrate and not by a first class Magistrate subordinate to him. If an appeal against conviction by a second class Magistrate could be heard by a first class Magistrate subordinate to the District Magistrate, we do not see any reason why appeals against orders of compensation should be heard only by a District Magistrate. Such orders are equated to those of convictions for the purpose of appeals. Therefore, both on principle and on the express terms of the relevant sections, we hold that an appeal can be presented to a Sub-Divisional Magistrate against an order of compensation made by a Sub-Magistrate in cases where the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of section 407, Criminal Procedure Code are complied with. A contrary view is sought to be sustained on the decision of Horwill, J., in D.K.Reddy , In re, 1941 2 M.L.J. 853 : I.L.R. (1943) Mad. 587.