BANSI LAL Vs. DHARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, has made this reference recommending that the order of the Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hiranagar, dated 28-12-1973 whereby he directed that the complainant should pay a sum of Rs. 20/- as compensation under Section 250 (2) for having brought a false and vexatious complaint against the accused may be set aside. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass and may be stated thus:

(2.) AGAINST this order of the learned Magistrate the complainant brought a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, who, as stated earlier, has recommended that the order be set aside as the same is bad in law, the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal P. C. not having been strictly complied with.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties in this reference I reserved judgment as I found that there was some conflict between various High Courts in regard to the true scope of Section 250 of the Criminal P. C. At the time of dictating the judgment I examined the whole evidence recorded by the Magistrate although it was not necessary for me to do so. After perusing the evidence in this case I am of the opinion that regardless of the question as to whether the procedure provided by Section 250 of the Criminal P. C. was or was not complied with, it was not a case where the Magistrate should have taken action under Section 250 of the Criminal P. C. From the tenor of the judgment it appears that the Magistrate has not tried to appreciate the evidence dispassionately. It is true that some of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case but that by itself does not suggest that the prosecution story was false, vexatious or frivolous. There is a lot of difference between the failure of the prosecution to prove a case and a finding that a report or complaint is false. The falsity or vexatiousness of a case have something to do with the state of the mind of the complainant. The motivating force for a false or a vexatious complaint must emerge from a malicious or a mala fide mind. The prosecution on the basis of insufficient evidence resulting in the discharge or the acquittal of the accused does not necessarily point to the malicious or vexatious mind of the complainant.