RAM DASS GHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order by which the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to each of the three opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in default: to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

(2.) Upon a complaint made by the petitioner, opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were tried by a Magistrate at Katwa on charges under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite parties and found that "prosecution signally failed to prove the occurrence" and that the complainant brought a maliciously false and frivlous case against the accused. While passing the order of acquittal, by the same judgment, the learned Magistrate asked the complainant to show cause by 1-5-1957 why he will not be ordered to pay Rs. 50/- each as compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused. On 21-5-1957 the petitioner showed, cause which the learned Magistrate found to be of no substance. The learned Magistrate therefore, ordered the petitioner to pay the compensation as mentioned above.

(3.) Dr. Devi Prosad Pal appearing for opposite parties 2, 3 and 4, took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this revisional application. He argues that when the Magistrate passed an order directing the complainant to pay1 a sum of Rs. 50/- to each of the three accused persons as compensation, the order was appealable under the provisions of Section 250, Sub-section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the aggregate amount of compensation payable to all the accused collectively was more than Rs. 50/-. In support of his contention Dr. Pal has referred me to the decision of Sarab Dial v. Bir Singh, AIR 1928 Lah 638 (A). In that case the complainant was ordered to pay compensation to seven persons at the rate of Rs. 50/- each. The petitioners in that case pre- ferred a petition for revision to the learned Sessions Judge of the order of discharge and also preferred an appeal under Section 250 (3) against the order directing him to pay compensation to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition for revision and held that no appeal lay to the High Court as the amount of compensation ordered to be paid to each accused individually did not exceed Rs. 50/-. The complainant thereafter came up to the High Court on the Revisional side and prayed for the setting aside of the order of discharge as well as the order to the effect that no appeal lay against the order directing him to pay compensation to the accused. The Lahore High Court held that having regard to the fact that the aggregate amount of compensation payable to the accused was Rs. 350/-, an appeal clearly lay to the Sessions Court.