THONOKADAVATH AWALLA; VALIAPARAMBATH KORUMBAN Vs. AMMIAN MANNIL KUTTIALI; KOROTH KANDIYIL KRISHNA KURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these references the question raised is, whether compensation can be awarded under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, notwithstanding that the cases originated in complaints to Village Magistrates. The Sub-Magistrate s order of compensation has been set aside by the Joint Magistrate with reference to the decision of Arulanatham Pillai, IN re 13 INd. Cas. 221 : 10 M.L.T. 550 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 558 : 22 M.L.J. 138 : 13 Cr.L.J. 29, and there are no doubt other cases, including one (Criminal Revision Case No. 627 of 1913) decided by one of us, as well as Emperor v. Thammanna Reddi 25 M. 667 : 2 Weir 318 in the authorised reports, in the same sense. But the relevant considerations were greatly affected by the decision in Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly Division v. Sivan Chetty 1 INd. Cas. 187 : 32 M. 258 : 5 M.L.T. 269 (F.B.) : 9 C.L.J. 170 and we disagree with the decision in Arulinatham Pillai, IN re 13 INd. Cas. 221 : 10 M.L.T. 550 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 558 : 22 M.L.J. 138 : 13 Cr.L.J. 29, in which the contrary view is taken. We prefer to follow the more recent authority, Nachimuthu Chetty v. Muthusami Chetty 24 INd. Cas. 167 : 27 M.L.J. 37 : 15 Cr.L.J. 431 : (1914) M.W.N. 804, in which that decision was dissented from. We, therefore, answer the question raised in the affirmative and set aside the Joint Magistrate s orders, restoring those of the Sub-Magistrate.