Beluraiah vs State and Another

In these two revision petitions a common question of law as to the legality, correctioness and propriety of the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Tiptur, arises for consideration. They have been heard simultaneously and are therefore proposed to be disposed of by a common order.

Cr.R.P. No. 373/1979 is directed against the order dated 2-7-1979 passed by the J.M.F.C, Tiptur, under S. 250, Cr.P.C. in C.C. No. 296/1978 whereby he has directed the complainant Beluraiah (P.W. 1) to pay Rs. 100 as compensation to the accused for having filed complaint against them before the police Cr.R.P. No. 374/1979 is directed against similar order passed by the said Magistrate, on the same day, in C.C. No. 273/1978 and directing the complainant Govindappa (P.W. 1) to pay a fine of Rs. 100.

The cases arise like this. On 30-4-1978, at about 6.30 p.m., there was some stone pelting incident, on the road in Kalkere village resulting in some commotion. On the complaints of Beluriah and Govindappa, two cases were registered by the police and after investigating into the same, two separate charge-sheets were sent to the Court against the person named as the accused in the cases. The learned Magistrate, on considering the statement of the witnesses and material documents relied upon by the pro-section in both the cases, framed charges for the offences disclosed against the accused and proceeded with the trial end recorded the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution in both the cases. On full dress trial of the case and on appreciation of the evidence the learned Magistrate disbelieved the version of the incident given by the witnesses in the two cases and acquitted the accused in both of them. While making the order of acquittal he being of the opinion that the complaints filed by the two complainants were false and it resulted in unnecessary trouble to the accused, he directed the complainants in each case to pay a fine of Rs. 100 to the accused. It is the correctness of the said order made by the Magistrate in these cases that is sought to be challenged in these revision petitions.

Mr. Dr. Biligiri Rangaiah learned counsel for petitioner, in both the cases, argued that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate in making the order without calling upon them to show cause why they should not pay the compensation to the accused persons and without giving any opportunity to them of being heard, being wholly illegal and the order passed by him directing the complainants in the 2 cases, to pay compensation cannot at all be sustained. The learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri B.R. Nanjundaiah, was unable to support the orders made by the learned Magistrate and very rightly too.

Sub-sec. (1) of S. 250 Cr.P.C which empowers the Magistrate to make an order of compensation against a complainant or any informant says:

(1) If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are recused before a "Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one; or, if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid."

Sub-sec. (2) makes it obligatory on the Magistrate to record and consider any cause which may be shown. Even a cursory reading of the section makes it clear that not only under sub-sec. (1) of S. 250 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate, who hears the case has to form and express his own opinion while discharging or acquitting all or any of the accused that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them and to call upon the complainant by the very order of discharge or acquittal to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused or any of them. If the complainant is present, it is open for the Magistrate to direct him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation. But, if he is not present then it is necessary to issue summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid. According to Sec. 250(2) of Cr.P.C., it is imperative on the Magistrate not only to consider the cause shown by the complainant but also record his satisfaction that there was no reasonable ground; for making the accusation, against the accused or any of them, before directing him to pay any such compensation to the accused.

In the two cases under consideration, neither the complainants were called upon to show cause why they should not pay compensation to the accused persons nor any opportunity was given to them of being heard before making the order for payment of the compensation. Therefore, it is clear, the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was illegal and against the mandates of provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 250 of Cr.P.C. and the orders passed by the learned Magistrate are vitiated and the two petitions are therefore entitled! to succeed.

It was submitted by Mr. B.R. Nanjundaiah, High Court Government Pleader, that the matter may be remitted back to the Magistrate for making an order after following the correct procedure. But such a course is not at all open. Because in a case where the Magistrate considers the complaint or information to be false and he considers it proper to award compensation under Section 250, Cr.P.C., it is obligatory on the Magistrate to call upon the complainant or the informant as the case may be, by the same order by which the accused is discharged or acquitted, to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. The learned Magistrate having failed to do so, it will not be competent to do it by a separate order. Therefore, the only course left is to set aside the illegal orders and leave it there.

In the result and for the reasons stated above the two revisions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 296/1978 and C.C. No. 273/ 1978 are set aside. If the amount of compensation is already deposited, they shall be refunded to the respective complainants.