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 subm