The court emphasized the importance of correcting injustices and not just illegalities in exercising its powers of revision.

Hallifax, A J C—The learned Sessions Judge who reported this case omitted to sign the report, and began his order by speaking of the complainant Mahadeo by the name of the accused Motiram. The falsity of the complaint is beyond doubt, even if it had been confined to an accusation of bigamy, as it is proved that the girl was never married to Mahadeo. But anyhow it is clear that she never lived for a day with him after the wedding, if it ever took place, and never even visited his village and he knew nothing about her, not even where she and her parents were living, till he heard that she had been married to Motiram six years later. The order for the payment of compensation for such an obvious attempt at black-mail is so clearly just that this Court would certainly refuse to interfere with it in revision even if there were some technical flaw in it. It has apparently to be said again that powers of revision are given to this Court for the correction of injustices, and not for the correction of mere illegalities.

2. But one of the many things that the learned Sessions Judge has left out of sight was that Mahadeo accused Motiram and the others of kidnapping the girl from lawful guardianship and also of doing so for the purpose of compelling her to marry Motiram against her will or in order that she might be forced or seduced to illicit sexual intercourse with him. There can be no doubt about the utter falsity of that, if only because of the fact that her lawful guardian at the time was her father, as is explained in Section 361, I.P.C. That the Magistrate did not mention either of those offences in the processes issued against the accused and did not enquire into them makes no difference; all five were accused of them very specifically by the complainant Mahadeo.

3. The learned Magistrate's reason for not ordering the payment of compensation to the girl's father and uncle as well as the rest was presumably the consideration that if the marriage with Mahadeo ever took place they knew all about it. That contradicts the finding that that marriage never took place, a finding in which, on an examination of the evidence, I concur, and compensation should have been awarded to Govinda and Sitaram as well, even in the view that the accusation was one of bigamy only. But the other two accusations - one more serious than that of bigamy and the other equally so - were undoubtedly false against the lawful guardian of the child and his brother in law, and they should have been awarded compensation for them. As has been said, the fact that the original summonses mentioned only Section 194, I.P.C., makes no difference.

4. It may be mentioned that in the judgment of the Magistrate as well as in the reasons recorded in the Sessions Court for reporting the case it has been said that the only person who could be guilty of bigamy was the girl, then about eight years of age the learned Magistrate adds that ''the others would be abettors.'' But Section 114, I.P.C., says that such persons ''shall be deemed to have committed'' the act abetted. The recommendation by the Sessions Court, that the order for the payment of compensation should be set aside, was clearly made without any consideration of when and why the powers given to this Court by Section 439, Criminal P.C., ought to be used, and can be accepted. The records will be returned.