HARU TANTI Vs. SATISH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge, and following the decision of Banerji J., in In the matter of the complaint of Safdar Husain (1903) I.L.R. 25 All. 315, Ave set aside, as having been made without jurisdiction, the order awarding compensation in this case.

(2.) THE course taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate in including in his order for the discharge of the two accused an order calling on their accuser to show cause why he should not pay them compensation, and subsequently, after hearing the accuser, making the award, may seem to be perfectly fair and reasonable; but it does not fulfil the requirements of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. What that section evidently contemplates, and if carefully read will be found expressly to require, is that, before a Magistrate makes it the ground or a ground for discharging a person complained against that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious, he shall hear the complainant on that aspect of the case, and, unless he does this, the whole proceeding as to compensation is bad.