AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 169 wordsHorwill, J.—Two persons were charged before a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates u/s 75 of the City Police Act with disorderly behaviour, abusing and assaulting each other and creating a disturbance. Although both the accused pleaded guilty, the learned Magistrates acquitted the second accused because he was injured and the other accused was not. That however is not the strangest part of the order; for the fine imposed on the first accused was ordered to be paid as compensation to the second accused.
Clearly this order that the fine should be paid as compensation to the other accused is illegal, there being nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code which permits of this. I am fortified in this conclusion by the expression of a similar opinion by my learned brother, Lakshmana Rao J. in Crown Prosecutor, Madras v. Duraiswami Naicker Criminal Revn. Case No. 872 of 1937 : AIR 1958 Mad 281
This petition is allowed and the order awarding compensation to the second accused is set aside.