HARIHAR DAT Vs. MAKSUD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point which arises in this reference is as to whether when a complaint has been filed against an accused per9on for offences some of which are triable exclusively by the Magistrate and some by the Sessions Court and the accused after trial is discharged in respect of all the offences, an order for compensation against the complainant, under Section 250 can or, cannot be passed.

(2.) The complaint was filed under Secs.395, 323 and 330, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate found that no case had been made out against the accused in respect of any of the offences mentioned. He accordingly discharged him. He farther ordered the complainant to pay Rs. 50 as compensation to the accused. The complainant applied in revision to the Additional Sessions Judge who has referred the case to the High Court. The learned Judge has declined to interfere on the merits, but has recommended that the order directing compensation to be paid should be set aside. He has cited the case of The Crown V/s. Hamir Chand (1902)14 PR 1902 Cr. and the case reported in Weir 11, 315. The learned Magistrate in his explanation has, however, relied on the cases of Mahaganam Venkatrayar V/s. Kodi Venkatrayar AIR 1922 Mad 223.

(3.) The Punjab case is not in point because the offence with which the accused was charged was one exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge and there was no other offence complained of which could have been tried by the Magistrate himself. The other case referred to by the learned Judge is not available here. Similarly the case relied upon by the learned Magistrate is not directly in point. In that case the Magistrate had regarded the offence complained of as being one under Section 463, I.P.C. (which he had jurisdiction to try), and had tried the accused for that offence and discharged him and ordered compensation. In the High Court it was contended that the offence really fell under Section 487, I.P.C., and the order for compensation was therefore illegal. The learned Judge held that inasmuch as the Magistrate had not proceeded illegally in trying the accused for the lesser offence he was not acting illegally in awarding compensation.