Scope of allowing compensation.

This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the order of compensation made by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Perambalur in C.C. No.1224 of 1951, and confirmed in C.A.No.6 of 1952 by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli.

The facts are: Natesa Udayar, the petitioner before us, of Melamathur filed a complaint against Kanakasabai Udayar and four others alleging that on 23rd September, 1951 at about 10a.m., he was assaulted by the accused when he went with the process server of the Ariyalur District Munsif’s Court to serve summons on the accused. The complaint was taken on file under section 355, Indian Penal Code, against accused 1 and 5 and under section 323, Indian Penal Code, against accused 2, 3 and 4. In support of his case this Natesa Udayar examined himself and three others, viz., P.Ws.2 and 3, eye witnesses, and P.W.4, the process server. The case for the accused persons was that on account of enmity arising out of Civil suit and in which the process was issued, they have been falsely implicated and that they did not commit the offence. The Sub-Magistrate holding that a prima facie case had been made out, framed a charge under section 355, Indian Penal Code, against accused 1 and 5 and under section 323, Indian Penal Code, against accused 2, 3 and 4. The accused pleaded not guilty and further cross-examined the P.Ws. I need not point out that there were lengthy intervals of time between the date of complaint, examination of the P.Ws. in the first instance, the framing of the charge, and the further cross-examination of the P.Ws. In the stage which began with the further cross-examination, P.W.4, the process server, went behind his evidence and managed to throw considerable doubts on the original testimony recorded in Court, before the framing of the charge. The accused persons had nothing to add to their previous statements and they examined three D.Ws the substance of whose evidence was that there was service of summons on accused 2, that there was a wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and accused 2 and there was an assault and that accused 1 and 3 to 5 were not at all present at that time. The Sub-Magistrate holding that the case had not been brought home to the accused acquitted them and called upon the complainant P.W.1 to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation for instituting a false and vexatious complaint. The complainant stated that the case was true and that the process server had been won over and deposed falsely after receiving illegal gratification from ‘the opposite side. The Sub-Magistrate found as follows:

“I do not accept the reason shown by the complainant. On the face of the evidence adduced, I conclude that the complainant has preferred a false and vexatious complaint against the accused.”

He directed the complainant to pay a compensation of Rs.100 in all to the five accused. In appeal this was confirmed by the Additional First Glass Magistrate and hence this revision.

The scope of section 250, Criminal Procedure Code and the circumstances which ought to weigh with the Magistrates before awarding compensation and especially in cases where charges have been framed are set out in the following decisions. In order to justify an order of compensation under this section it is necessary to show that the person in question had been accused of an offence triable by the Magistrate ordering compensation and that the person had been discharged or acquitted and where this is done the Magistrate has jurisdiction to pass the order. It is immaterial whether the case is triable as a summons case, or as a warrant case or is summarily tried: Paighambar v. Emperor1; Empress v. Basava2. The operation of this section is however restricted to cases instituted upon a complaint or upon information given to a Police Officer or to a Magistrate. It will not apply to a case instituted on a police report or on information given by a police officer: Salah v. Emperor3; Ramjeewan K