Palani Goundan vs Krishnappa Goundan and Others

Krishnan Pandalai, J.—This is a petition to revise an order awarding compensation to six accused (at Rs. 10 each) made by the First Class

Bench of Magistrates of Dharapuram and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, Two objections are raised (1) that the record

of the trial does not contain, as it should, the reasons why the Bench considered the complaint to be false and vexatious, and (2) that this vitiates

the order.

On the first point on which there seems to be no direct decision of this Court, the contention must be upheld that even in records of summary

trials under Chap. XXII of the Criminal Procedure Code where the Magistrate or Bench acts u/s 250, the requisites of that section as to recording

of reasons must be carried out. This seems to follow from the provisions of Section 262 which lays down that the procedure prescribed for

summons cases shall be followed in summons cases and that prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in warrant cases even when they are

tried in a summary way. The only exceptions to this rule are contained in the next two following Sections 263 and 264, The former applies to cases

where no appeal lies and the latter to cases in which an appeal lies, which means, to cases where an appealable sentence is or is not passed upon

the accused. These Sections 263 and 264 do not, if reasonably read, provide for proceedings u/s 250 by which alone compensation to the

accused is ordered against the complainant. There being thus no express exception from the general rule laid down by Section 262, it follows that

even in summary trials the requisition of Section 250 must be satisfied.

The next question is whether in this case they have been satisfied. This point was apparently not raised before the Sessions Judge on behalf of

the petitioner. But that learned Judge was of opinion that the order of the Bench does not contain a record of reasons for awarding compensation

although he also thought that the omission had not prejudiced the appellant and, therefore, did not u/s 537, invalidate the order. Taking the record

of the trial as a whole and remembering that the record is itself the record of a summary trial it is not quite accurate to say that it does not contain a

record of reasons for awarding compensation. After the evidence was closed, the Bench put the following question to the complainant:

The Case brought by you has been proved to be false and vexatious and it is clear that this has been brought simply to harass the accused. Please

show cause why a compensation of Rs. 25 to each of the accused or Rs. 160 in all should not be ordered.

The complainant answered that the case brought by him was true. The Bench, therefor, go on to state that when called on to explain why the

compensation should not be ordered for bringing this false and vexatious complaint, P.W. No. 1 says that his complaint was true and that this is no

explanation at all. Then they make the order directing him to pay Rs. 25 each. Reading this in a fair and reasonable way the passage where the

Bench said that it is clear that this case has been brought simply to harass the accused although it occurs as a portion of the question put to the

complainant, may be understood and must have been intended as a record of their own reasons for thinking that the complaint was false and

vexatious. They had just then taken the evidence and the impression made by it upon their minds was still quite fresh and they concluded, as they

said in plain terms, that the case was false and vexatious because it was brought to harass the accused. I am not able to say that the requirements

of law have not been satisfied. It is needless to add that, even if there had been any omission, Section 537 would have been sufficient to cure the

omission in view of the fact that the petitioner himself did not raise the question before the Sessions Judge.

The petition is dismissed