In Re: Arulanandham Pillai

In this case the Second Class Magistrate awarded compensation to the accused whom he acquitted on a charge of theft. The complainant gave

to the Village Magistrate a report of the theft and the Village Magistrate made a report to the police. The Second Class Magistrate took no

cognizance of the offence on the report of the police. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate set aside the order awarding compensation on the ground that

the case was not instituted by ""complaint"" as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code or upon information given to a police officer or to a

Magistrate, the Village Magistrate not being a Magistrate within the meaning of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (See Section 1). In

this view the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was, in our opinion, right. The only person to whom the complainant gave information was the Village

Magistrate. He cannot be regarded as having given information to a police officer, although the Village Magistrate was bound to report the

occurrence to the police. King-Emperor v. Thammana Reddi ILR (1901) M. 667 is exactly in point. Its authority is in no way affected by the case

of the Sessions Judge of the Tinnevelly Division v. Sivan Chetti ILR (1909) M. 258. That case decided only that when information is given to a

Village Magistrate it might in certain cases amount to an institution of criminal proceedings or a charge of an offence.

That has no bearing on the question whether information given to a Village Magistrate can be regarded as information given to the police to

whom he was bound to report. We are of opinion, therefore, that there is no ground for interference.

The record will be returned to the Sessions Judge.