In Re: Jonnalagedda Appala Narasayya Bhukta and Others

Reading Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together, we cannot say that the order for compensation made in spite of the

complainant''s request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is illegal. But in our opinion it is not one that should be made except in very

exceptional cases. Directly a Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering the making of an order against him u/s 250, Criminal

Procedure Code, the complainant''s position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defence

though not actually accused. The Code provides for a record of his objection and it seems to us that his position is made by the words of the Code

stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for prosecution for an offence u/s 182 or Section 211, I.P.C. is sought, and in such

cases this Court has always required that notice and opportunity to meet should be given and the party permitted to adduce evidence though

Section 195 has no such provision. We think that he should be allowed to call his witnesses, for until the magistrate has heard them, he cannot say

whether their evidence will not help him to decide first, the propriety of such an order and secondly the extent of the culpability of the complainant

to be expressed in the amount of the compensation. The case of Queen Empress v. Chiragh Ali (1898) A.W.N. 198 relied on by Mr. Satya-

narayana who appears for the person who received compensation, was a case where the accused was acquitted and such acquittal in a summons

case could only be after all the evidence for the prosecution was taken, and in a warrant case after charge framed. We therefore set aside the

order for compensation.