2005 (2) U.D., 373
High Court of Uttaranchal
J.C.S. Rawat, J.
R. P. Purohit and others
Versus
State of Uttaranchal
Criminal Revision no. 574 of 2001, 573 of 2001
Decided on: 30-06-2005.
N.D.P.S. Act - Compensation - The court found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not comply with the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and awarded compensation ex parte without hearing the revisionists. The court held that no compensation can be awarded to the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were challenged under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the police officials to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac each to the accused, which the revisionists contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not comply with the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and awarded compensation ex parte without hearing the revisionists. The court held that no compensation can be awarded to the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Issues: Compliance with Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, awarding compensation ex parte, excessive compensation amount, and the legality of the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not comply with the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and awarded compensation ex parte without hearing the revisionists. The court also noted that no compensation can be awarded to the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed in part, and the impugned order regarding payment of Rs. 1 lac each by the revisionists was quashed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants/revisionists and perused the record.
2. According to the prosecution case, the accused were challenged under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act and after recording the evidence, the Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that prosecution was able to prove the guilt against the accused persons. After recording the acquittal of the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the police officials, who were involved in the recovery and investigation, which was recovered from his personal search that shall be recovered from their pay as well as from G.P.F. It was further observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accused were in Jail for eight months for which Rs. 1 lac each will be paid by the police officials within a period of one month to the accused as a compensation. Thereafter, the police department will recover such amount from the erring police personnel from their pay or G.P.F.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has filed present revision petition feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to the recovery of Rs. 1 lac against the revisionists.
4. By means of this revision, the revisionists have prayed that the order and judgement of the learned Trial Court dated 30-06-2001 awarding compensation against the revisionists may be quashed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as for the State.
6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the court below has not complied with the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary to the extent by which rupees one lac has been awarded against the revisionists. It was further contended that the compensation amount is very excessive. It was further contended on behalf of the revisionists that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have not disclosed that the revisionists had taken his watch and money. It was further contended that the learned court below has illegally held that statement given by the accused that the revisionists had forcibly taken money and watch of the accused.
7. Learned counsel for the State contended that the State has not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
8. Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if in any case which is pending for trial before. the .court, the court while acquitting the accused, if, is of the opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the court may, by its order of discharge or acquittal call upon the complainant for the person, who has given the information to show cause as to why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused. Thereafter, if the person concerned appears before the court and the court is of the view that no reasonable ground for making the accusation, he may for the reasons to be recorded may make an order that the compensation to such amount may be awarded by the informant or the complainant to the accused.
9. In the Instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions of Section 250 Cr.P.C. and he has not given any notice to the complainant or the informant and has proceeded in awarding compensation ex parte without hearing the revisionists. The direction was issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the State/police department to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the revisionists giving liberty to the State to realize or to recover the whole of such compensation from erring police officials. In my view, the police officials have not been given the notice and thereafter no reasons have been recorded as stipulated under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C. Without recording the reasons and directing the police department to pay Rs. 1 lac as compensation t
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.