GADADHAR BISOI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Court below directing the Petitioner to pay compensation of, Rs. 5/ - to each of the 8 accused persons, in default to undergo S.I. for 7 days.

(2.) ON the information lodged by the Petitioner G.R. Case No. 36 70, for offences under Sections 147 and 323 , Indian Penal Code, was instituted against 8 accused persons, opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 in the revision. The Court below acquitted the accused persons and in the same order of acquittal it also passed the aforesaid impugned order, purporting to act under Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) IN the present case, the Magistrate by the Order of acquittal itself has directed payment of compensation by the informant to the accused persons. No doubt, in the impugned judgment it is stated that opportunity to show cause was given to the complainant against the aforesaid order and the impugned order was passed after considering the cause shown by the informant. I find from the judgment that the Magistrate at first recorded an order of acquittal and thereafter passed the aforesaid order under Section 250(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, of course all these in the same judgment of acquittal. As the Magistrate afforded an opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause against the aforesaid order and the said order was passed after hearing the Petitioner 's advocate I will not go to the extent of holding that the said order is an illegal one only because it was passed along with the judgment of acquittal. But on a perusal of the impugned order I find that the Magistrate has not bestowed proper consideration to the cause shown and has not considered and dealt with the matter in the correct perspective. I am, on going through the order, left with the impression that the Magistrate had made up his mind before actually calling upon the informant to show cause, and that was done only as a matter of course. Apart from the fact that the Magistrate did not proceed in the matter in strict accordance with law, he has also not taken pains to consider the matter afresh to arrive at an independent finding in the context and perspective of the elements necessary for passing an order under Section 250(2) Code of Criminal Procedure irrespective of what he found in the judgment of acquittal.