PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. GOLEKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying to expunge certain remarks made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aska in his judgment in G. R. Case No. 22/79 and to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay compensation to each of the accused persons in the said case on a finding that there was no sufficient ground for causing arrest of the accused persons.

(2.) The petitioner was the informant in G. R. Case No. 22/79 and on the basis of his information a criminal case was instituted against opposite parties 1 to 4 on the allegation that the opposite parties forcibly entered into the homestead of the petitioner armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the field servants. Though charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite parties under Ss. 147/148/149/447/448/323/379/506, I.P.C. the opposite parties stood the trial for the offence under S. 448, I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Aska by order dt. 20-12-1983 acquitted the opposite parties and while acquitting, directed that the petitioner should pay compensation to the accused persons and in the judgment of acquittal he has made some observation which the petitioner seeks for expunction.

(3.) Mr. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the power of the Magistrate to award compensation for groundless arrest is provided for in S. 358 of the Cr. P. C. (for short 'the Code'). Though in terms the said section does not provide for an opportunity of hearing before passing the order yet on the general principle of fair-play and natural justice a Magistrate must give a show-cause against whom he proposes to pass an order under S. 358 of the Code and since no such show-cause has been given in the present case the order directing the payment of compensation must be quashed. He also submits that the conditions precedent for passing an order under S. 358 of the Code have not been satisfied in the present case and, therefore, the order directing payment of compensation cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contends that the provisions of S. 358 of the Code being clear and unambiguous and no show-cause having been intended by the legislature, a show-cause cannot be imported to it and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The rival contentions require careful examination. S. 358 of the Code is quoted herein below in extenso for proper appreciation of the point in issue :