OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Police Station, Hindaun, Omprakash lodged a report that on October 30, 1965 when he left a few of his articles outside his house and went in the house to collect some other articles, the articles which he had left outride were stolen Omprakash added that ht was trying to locate the articles and his servant informed him that he had seen the stolen articles at the shop of one Murarilal. He prayed for action. The police submitted a report of a case against one Jagdish Prasad under Sections 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, Jagdish Prasad was acquitted and in the order of acquittal the learned Magistrate observed that the case instituted against him was false and be issued notice under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking Omprakash to show cause why he should not be called upon to pay compensation as envisaged by the section. Omprakash resisted the demand. The learned Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the case was false and was intended to harass Jagdish Prasad and ordered that Omprakash should pay a sum of Rs. 500/ to him (Jagdish Prasad) by way of compensation as contemplated by Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old). An appeal was taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City but without success. Omprakash is before me asking for the revision of the order of the learned Magistrate dated January 15, 1969.

(2.) THE principal argument urged on behalf of the applicant is that Omprakash had merely informed the police of the event of theft and that the stolen goods were found by his servant to be at the shop of one Murarilal. If the police as a result of the investigation brought wrong person to trial, he cannot be held answerable for compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old).

(3.) LERANED Counsel appearing for the State also supported Mr. Garg counsel for Jagdish Prasad