EMPEROR Vs. PUNAMCHAND HIRACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Magistrate having decided to discharge the accused recorded at the same time that he ordered the discharge of the accused his conclusion that the case was one in which subject to any objection which the complainant might urge against making the direction, the complainant ought to be ordered to pay compensation for making a frivolous and vexatious complaint. Ha then, as the law requires, under Clause (a), Section 250 Criminal Procedure Code, recorded, and considered the objection which the complainant urged against making the direction and then under Clause (b) of that section added to his order of discharge a direction that the complainant pay compensation. We are asked to hold that this procedure was illegal because the Magistrate did not make the direction as to compensation a part of the order as to discharge before the complainant was given opportunity as required by law to adduce his objection to such direction being made. The case of Safdar Husain (1903) I.L.R. 25 All. 315 has been cited, because in that case Banerji J. held that when a Magistrate on finding a complaint to be frivolous or vexatious, thinks it right to award compensation to the complainant, he must do so by his order of discharge or acquittal and where a Magistrate made such an order in a separate proceedings after the accused had been discharged, held that his order was not merely irregular but without jurisdiction.

(2.) In my opinion the procedure adopted by the Magistrate on the case before us was a sufficient compliance with the law as enacted in Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The rule must be discharged. Heaton, J.