Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.84/90 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. The charge was for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was acquitted. While acquitting the learned Magistrate directed 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector who had arrested the petitioner and registered the crime to show cause why compensation shall not be paid under section 250 of Cr.P.C. Second respondent showed cause in M.C.21/93. But he was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000. Second respondent challenged the order in Cr.A.144/93 before Sessions Cowl, Alappuzha. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Magistrate. Accused is challenging that order in the revision contending that he was not heard by the learned Sessions Judge and even if there was any illegality or irregularity, learned Sessions Judge should have remitted the case back to the Magistrate and should not have closed the case.

2. Heard Advocate Smt. Santha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. C.C.84/90 was a case taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate on a report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pattanakkad who was examined as P.W.6 therein under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. That case was suo motu registered by the second respondent in his capacity as Sub Inspector of Police, Cherthala Police Station. Prosecution case was that petitioner was found in suspicious circumstances on the midnight of 10-11-by the second respondent and he was arrested and Crime No.348/89 of Cherthala Police Station was registered under Section 41 (1) (d) and 102 of Cr.P.C. Second respondent conducted the investigation and found out that petitioner had committed an offence under section 379 of I.P.C. The second respondent finding that the offence was not committed within his jurisdiction but within the jurisdiction of Pattanakkad Police Station transferred the case records to the Pattanakkad Police Station. The Sub Inspector of that Police Station completed the investigation and laid the charge before the learned Magistrate which was taken cognizance of. The learned Magistrate while acquitting the revision petitioner herein held that the second respondent registered the case without any justification and as a result revision petitioner had to be in jail for three days and directed registration of a case under Section 250 of Cr.P.C. Second respondent defended the proceedings under Section 250 of Cr.P.C. before learned Magistrate. But without considering the question whether there was reasonable ground for making the accusation solely relying on his earlier finding directed second respondent to pay compensation. When second respondent challenged it, the learned Sessions Judge finding that no enquiry as contemplated under Section 250 of Cr.P.C was conducted holding that the learned Magistrate should not have acted on his earlier finding and instead should have independently considered whether there was any reasonable cause for the second respondent to register the case set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The question is whether that order is legal and proper.

4. Advocate Sri. Rajeev relied on the decisions of the High Court of Bombay in Mohamed Meera v. Dattatraya Babaji AIR (34) 1974 Bombay 36 and the High Court of Sind in Mohammad Hasum v. Emperor AIR 1940 Sind 134 and argued that the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded against the second respondent under Section 250 of Cr.P.C. and if at all the Magistrate could have proceeded only against the complainant or informant to the Police or the Magistrate.

5. Section 250 of Cr. P.C. reads:

(1) If 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, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or a