KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application filed by Kailash Chandra against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate First Class, Kekri who had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 100 as compensation to non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code

(2.) IT appears that there was a complaint filed by Kailash Chandra against the first three non-petitioners in the court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate First Class, Kekri under Section 352/504 Indian Penal Code in which the non-petitioners were acquitted by the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 25th February, 1964 While dismissing the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded a finding that the petitioner had filed a false and frivolous complaint against the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and, therefore, he ordered to issue a notice under Section 250 Criminal Procedure Code calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be made to pay compensation to the non-petitioners for filing false and frivolous complaint. The petitioner submitted a written reply to the said notice The learned Magistrate after perusing the reply of the petitioner passed an order on 23rd March, 1964 that the petitioner should pay compensation amount of Rs 100 to each of the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, and while doing so he observed in the impugned order that 'because of the unsatisfactory reply filed by the petitioner, it is established that the complaint was false and vexatious". An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against this order of the learned Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer but he also dismissed the appeal without recording his own finding about the nature of the complaint whether it was false and vexatious. It is against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the present revision application has been moved by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order is prima facie illegal as it was passed by the learned Magistrate without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 250 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the Magistrate failed to record his finding about the false and vexatious nature of the complaint filed by the petitioner. He further contended that neither the Magistrate nor did the Additional Sessions Judge care to comply with this mandatory requirement of law and thus the orders impugned are vitiated. In support of this contention, he placed his reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Fakir Das Dutt v. Gaya Dhar Jana, AIR 1957 Cal 225.