Section 250 of the CrPC, which allows a magistrate to award compensation to an accused person, does not apply to offences triable by the Court of Session, even if the offence was actually tried by a magistrate vested with powers under Section 30 of the CrPC.

Das, J.

1. This application in revision raises an interesting question of some importance. The question is if a Magistrate vested with powers under Sec.30, Criminal P. C., can award compensation to the accused person under the provisions of Sec.250, Criminal P. C., when the offence he tries is an offence which is triable by the Court of session under the eighth column of Schedule II, Criminal P. C.

2. The material facts are the following. On 29-4-1951, the petitioner Narain Hazam lodged a first information at Dhanwar Police Station against four persons, opposite parties before us, in which the accused Ramdhari Singh, opposite party No. 1, of having set fire to his house and Mahabir Singh, Suba Singh and Mathura Singh, opposite parties 2 to 4, with having abetted Ramdhari Singh in the commission of the offence of arson. On the basis of the first information, the local police made an investigation and submitted a charge-sheet against the opposife party.

Ramdhari Singh was charged with an offence under Sec. 436, Penal Code, and Mahabir Singh, Suba Singh and Mathura Singh were charged with abetment of the said offence. Mr. S. F. Azam, a magistrate vested with powers under Sec.30, Criminal P. C., tried the opposite party. He found, on a consideration of the evidence, that the accusation against the opposite party was false and frivolous. He acquitted the four members of the opposite party, and asked the petitioner to show cause why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the accused persons. The petitioner showed cause. The learned magistrate was not satisfied with it, and made an order under the provisions of Sec.250, Criminal P. C., that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 50.00 to each of the four members of the opposite party. Against the order of the learned Magistrate there was an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is unfortunate that the opposite party did not enter appearance; and in spite of notice to the Deputy Commissioner, the State has not been represented before us.

4. The only question which has been agitated before us is that the offence under Section 436, Penal Code, and abetment thereof being offences not triable by a magistrate under the eighth column of Schedule II, Criminal P. C., Sec.250, Criminal P. C., did not apply, and the learned Magistrate vested with powers under Sec.30, Criminal P. C., had no jurisdiction to pass an order of compensation against the petitioner.

Before I refer to the case law on the subject, it is necessary to read some of the sections in the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing on the question at issue. Sec.250, Criminal P. C., is headed, "Frivolous Accusations in Summons and Warrant Cases", and the relevant portion of the section is in these terms: "Sec.250(1). If in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that the accusation against them or any of them was false and either frivolous or vexatious, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused etc."

Sub-section (2) of the section lays down that if, after considering any cause which is shown by the complainant, the Magistrate is satisfied that the accusation was false and either fri-volous or vexatious, he may, for reasons to be recorded, direct that compensation to such amount not exceeding Rs. 100.00 be paid by such complainant. Sub-section (1) of Sec.250, which I have quoted above in extenso, can be div