Back
1920 Supreme(Mad) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Ayyar, Napier
In Re: Appalanarasayya Bhukta
Versus
Emperor
Decided On : 19 August, 1920
The complainant should be allowed to call witnesses to help the Magistrate decide the propriety of the order for compensation and the extent of the complainant's culpability.
Headnote:
Compensation - Code of Criminal Procedure - The court held that the order for compensation made in spite of the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is not illegal, but it should only be made in very exceptional cases. The complainant's position changes when informed about the order under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defense. The Code provides for a record of his objection, and his position is made stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for prosecution is sought. The court emphasized that the complainant should be allowed to call witnesses to help the Magistrate decide the propriety of the order and the extent of the culpability of the complainant to be expressed in the amount of the compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the provisions of Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses in the context of an order for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order for compensation made in this case was set aside as the complainant should have been allowed to call witnesses to help the Magistrate decide the propriety of the order and the extent of the culpability of the complainant to be expressed in the amount of the compensation.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of making an order for compensation in spite of the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses and the complainant's position when informed about the order under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the complainant should be allowed to call witnesses to help the Magistrate decide the propriety of the order and the extent of the culpability of the complainant to be expressed in the amount of the compensation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order for compensation.
1. Reading Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together we cannot say that the order for compensation made in spite of the complainants request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is illegal. But in our opinion it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases. Directly a Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering making an order against him under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, the complainants position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defence though not actually accused. The Code provides for a record of his objection, and it seems to us that his position is made, by the words of the Code, stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for prosecution for an offence under Section 182 or 211, Indian Penal Code, is sought, and in such cases this Court has always required that notice and opportunity to meet should be given and the party permitted to adduce evidence though Section 195 contains no such provision. We think that he should be allowed to call witnesses, for until the Magistrate has heard them he cannot say whether their evidence will not help him to decide (firstly), the propriety of such an order and (secondly) the extent of the culpability of the complainant to be expressed in the amount of the compensation. Queen-Empress v. Chiragh Ali (1898) 18 A.W.N., 198, relied on by Mr. Satyanarayana (who appears for the person who received compensation), was a case where the accused was acquitted, and such acquittal in a summons case could only be after all the evidence for the prosecution was taken, and in a warrant case after charge was framed. We therefore set aside the order for compensation.
