Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RYVES, J.
Mannu Khan - Appellant
Versus
Chandi Prasad & Ors. - Respondents
Decided On : 16-06-1922
JUDGMENT
Ryves, J. - Mannu Khan laid information before the Magistrate in consequence of which action was taken u/s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against a number of persons. After enquiry, the Magistrate discharged these persons u/s 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that the complaint made against them was vexatious and frivolous, and ordered the complainant to pay them each Rs. 15 as compensation u/s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On revision before the learned District Magistrate he has referred the case to this Court with a recommendation that the order u/s 250 be sat aside. Section 250 is only applicable in a case instituted by complaint or on information given to a Police Officer or to a Magistrate whereupon a person is accused before a Magistrate of "an offence." It has been held by this Court in Ram Sukh Rai v. Mahudeo Rai 7 Ind. Cas. 290 : 7A.L.J. 743 : 11 Cri. L.J. 446 that Section 250 does not apply to an enquiry u/s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That ruling followed an earlier ruling of this Court which laid down the came principle, viz., Queen-Empress v. Lakhpat 15 A. 385; (1893) A.W.N.114 : 7 Ind. Dec. 952. It seems to me that those cases are in point. I accordingly accept the reference and direct that if the fines ordered to be paid u/s 250 have been paid they be refunded, otherwise the order for payment is set aside.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
