Shib Chandra Bhattacharjee vs State

Sen, J.—The Petitioner Shib Chandra Bhattacharjee was directed by a Subdivisional Magistrate, Kalna, to pay Rs. 50 as compensation u/s 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in his view the case u/s 420, Indian Penal Code, brought by him against the accused Adhir Mondal alias Ajit Mondal was false as well as frivolous and vexatious. The case of the Petitioner briefly was that he had a grocer''s- shop at Monieswar and his brother Sridhar aged 16 used to help him in running the shop; that the accused Adhir Mondal came to the shop of the complainant and also to the complainant''s house on some occasions and made a proposal that he would enter into a business transaction in rice with the Petitioner''s shop, and that on the 28th Chaitra corresponding to April 12, 1957 when the Petitioner had to go home from the shop the accused accompanied him for some distance and then came back to the shop where the Petitioner''s young brother Sridhar was in charge and told him that the Petitioner had directed Sridliar to give Rs. 162 in cash to the accused and also directed that Sridliar should give the sale proceeds of two mawnds of rice by selling the same to Kalo Garai. Sridhar thereupon gave a sum of Rs. 162 to the accused but got him to make an entry of the advance in account book of the shop. Further according to the prosecution case, Sridhar made over two mounds of rice to the accused for sale to Kalo Garai, and the accused took that rice to Kalo Garai''s shop with the help of a labourer and came bank with the sale proceeds to the complainant''s shop and after taking his meal ''there went away.

When the complainant Petitioner returned to the shop and learnt everything from Sridhar, he was angry with Sridhar and began to look for the accused. He lodged a First Information Report on April 24, 1957. The police in course of investigation arrested the accused and after an identification parade submitted a charge-sheet against the accused.

The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that the ease was a false case.

The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence was not satisfied that the case was true, but on (he other hand he held that the entry in the account book, ext. 5, related so repayment of Rs. 162 by the accused, and that the Complainant had willfully brought a false case against the Accused by staling that the accused had taken the money by false pretences. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate called upon the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay a compensation u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was passed along with the judgment, dated February 28, T�59t Thereafter, cause was shown by the complainant. The learned Magistrate on May 2, 1959 passed an order u/s 250(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a few lines, stating that the cause shown was not sufficient and that he found the explanation unsatisfactory and directed the complainant Petitioner to pay Rs. 50 as compensation to the accused.

Against that order the complainant has moved this Court. Mr. Sisir Kumar Bose, appearing for the Petitioner, has urged firstly that the order of the learned Magistrate, dated May 2, 1959, does not comply with the requirements of Section 250(2)., He has also urged that on the merits the learned Magistrate was wrong in coining to the conclusion that the complainant''s case was a false case. Section 250 (2) requires that the Magistrate shall record and consider any cause that the complainant maj show and if he is satisfied that the accusation is false and either frivolous or vexatious, he may for reasons to be recorded direct that compensation to such amount not exceeding one half of the amount of fine he is empowered to impose, as he may determine, be paid to the accused. Accordingly in the order u/s 250(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, for payment of compensation the learned Magistrate must recite and discuss the cause shown by the complainant, and must state that he is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by him that the cause brought by the complaint was false and either frivolous or vexatious. In Fakir Das Dutt Vs. Gaya Dhar Jana and Another, Debabrata Mookerjee, J. held that in the proceeding u/s 250(2) the Magistrate must form his opinion as regards the merits of the accusation, after he has heard the complainant when he shows cause, and then the Magistrate must record a finding that the cause which was brought was false and either frivolous or vexatious; and that it was not sufficient compliance with the requirement of law to record an opinion in the main judgment itself that the allegations were false and vexatious. Mr. Chandra Nath Mukherjee, appearing for the State has referred to a later decision of N.K. Sen, J., Ramdas Ghosh v. The State AIR [1958] Cal. 616 where it was observed that where in the main judgment a clear finding was contained that the accusation was malicious and frivolous and the cause shown was found to be of no substance, then it was not necessary that the Magistrate must repeat again in his order u/s 250(2) that the case was false and frivolous or vexatious. This case, however, does not really go against the decision of Debabrata Mookerjee, J. because it appears from the judgment that in his order u/s 250(2) the learned Magistrate had elaborately dealt with the cause shown by the complainant and rejected the same. In the present case, the learned Magistrate failed to consider the cause shown at any length. He merely disposed of the cause shown in one sentence by saying that it was insufficient and unsatisfactory. Further, in view of the terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 250, I would agree with Debabrata Mookerjee, J. that in the order u/s 250(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary for the learned Magistrate to record the finding with reasons that the accusation was false and frivolous or vexatious; it frequently happens that a case brought against an accused is not proved, but on the other hand if the complainant is prosecuted for bringing a false case, it is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the case is false. For these reasons, it is necessary for the learned Magistrate in recording an order u/s 250(5), which is a summary way of punishing a complainant for bringing a false case, to record the finding with reasons that the case is false and either frivolous or vexatious. In the present case, no such finding was made and, therefore, in my opinion, the order was bad.

Also I must agree with Mr. Bose that on the merits it is difficult to agree with the conclusion of the learned Magistrate as recorded in the main judgment that the case was necessarily false. If the complainant had received a repayment of Rs. 162 from one of his debtors, there is no reason why he should have brought a false case against him saying that the person in question had obtained that money from his brother by false pretence; there is also no reason why the test identification parade should have been held. In fact that is one of the grounds stated by complainant in his cause shown, namely, that the accused was a stranger to him and that there was no reason why he should have brought a case of cheating falsely against him. In view of the test identification parade, this explanation given in the cause shown appears to be of some importance; and the learned Magistrate should certainly have dealt with it. Moreover, the finding that the case was false would depend on a reading of the entry, ext. 5, in the complainant''s account book that it was a "shod" or repayment. Mr. Bose has urged that the word is actually "khod" showing that the money was personally received by the payee himself. I cannot say that the contention of Mr. Bose is incorrect, although the word is written in a somewhat indistinct manner. That being so, a doubt is thrown on the basis of the judgment on which the complainant''s case was disbelieved, and certainly it cannot be said that the complainant''s case was false.

Accordingly, this Rule is made absolute and the order of compensation passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside.