RAMESHWAR DANGI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed is against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, dated the 9th September, 1971, by which he affirmed the order of the trying Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 600/ - by way of compensation under Section 250(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. Rs. 200/ - to each of the three accused, namely, (i) Rajeshwar Singh, (ii) Ramadhar Singh and (iii) Hem Kumar Sahu of case No. 90/Tr. No. 63 of 1965/1970, disposed of by the Munsif Magistrate, Chatra, on the 23rd of May 1970.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in short, is that a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Sections 426 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code against Rajeshwar Singh, Ramadhar Singh and Hem Kumar Sahu. On account of this complaint, the trial of the aforesaid three persons was held. The trying Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner had manufactured a false case, and that the accusation made by the petitioner against them was frivolous and vexatious. On the basis of this finding these three persons were acquitted of the charges for offences under Sections 426 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code, and a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner (the complainant) as to why he should not pay Rs. 200/ - by way of compensation to each of these three persons under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In pursuance of this order a show cause was filed on behalf of the petitioner on the 29th July, 1970. By an order dated the 17th August, 1970 it was rejected by the trying Magistrate on the ground that as in the main judgement the accusations had been found to be false, frivolous and vexatious, there was no substance in the show cause. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to pay the amount of compensation as aforesaid to each of the three persons.

(3.) THE grievance of Mr. Ras Behari Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that Sub -Section (2) of Section 250 lays down a further obligation on the Court to reconsider the objections filed by the petitioner and to come to a definite finding once again as to whether the order directing to pay compensation was justified in the eyes of law. In the submission of the learned Counsel, the findings already arrived at in the main judgement on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, will not exonerate the Court from carrying out its legal obligations which have been made imperative by the word 'shall' as used under Section 250(2) Criminal Procedure Code It seems to me that the submissions of the learned Counsel are well founded. Sub -Section (2) of Section 250 Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows : -