Thadiappan alias Ramiah vs Veeraperumal Thevan and Another

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.—The petitioner in this ease was the complainant and the respondents were Accused 4 and 5. The Sub-Magistrate

found that no case had been made out: against Accused 4 and 5 and discharged them. But at the same time, he made an order asking that the

complainant should pay Accused 4 and 5 compensation of Rs. 30 each. The portion of the Sub-Magistrate''s judgment that deals with his order for

payment of compensation is in the following terms:

As no case is made out against any of the accused, I discharge them u/s 253(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,"" I further find that Accused 4

and accused 5 have been vexatiously added as Accused. The complainant was directed to show cause why he should not be ordered u/s 250,

Criminal Procedure Code, to pay compensation to Accused 4 and Accused 5. The complainant had no sufficient cause to show. I, therefore,

further direct that the complainant do pay to each of the accused, Accused 4 and Accused 5, a compensation of Rs. 30.

Section 250 Criminal Procedure Code requires, before an order for compensation could be made by a Magistrate not only that he should be

satisfied that the accusation was either frivolous or vexatious, but that the Magistrate, directing compensation to be paid, should record his reasons

for making such a direction. On a proper reading of the section, it seems to me, that the recording of the reasons for ordering compensation to be

paid is almost a condition precedent to the proper exercise of the power. The recording of the reasons is in addition to the finding of the Magistrate

that the accusation was either frivolous or vexatious. No doubt there are no words in the section calculated to indicate what the reasons recorded

should be. But obviously the reasons must go to show, why it is that the Magistrate considers the accusation against the accused, to be frivolous or

vexatious, and why in his opinion it was a fit case, in which an order for compensation should be made. The learned Public Prosecutor has

contended before me that having regard to the terms of the section, it is not necessary for the Magistrate more than merely to state that he finds the

accusation to be frivolous or vexatious and that such a statement, when recorded in writing would be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of

the section. I cannot agree. I am satisfied that at any rate the reasons for the Magistrate finding the accusation to be frivolous or vexatious must be

so set out. Even this is absent in the order under reference. All that the Magistrate says is that no case has been made out and no reasons are given

why the Magistrate considered the accusation against the Accused 4 and 5 to be vexatious. The policy of the Legislature in requiring that in such a

ease the reasons should be recorded in writing is obviously to afford an opportunity to an appellate or revising tribunal to consider the sufficiency of

the reasons so recorded. In the absence therefore of any reasons recorded by the Magistrate, as regards the sufficiency of which any appellate or

revising tribunal might have an opportunity to judge, I cannot think that there has been a proper compliance with the provisions of the section. The

learned Public Prosecutor has adverted to the word ''added'' in the expression ''vexatiously added'' as indicating the reasoning in the mind of the

Magistrate that in his opinion Accused 4 and 5 were merely added vexatiously by the complainant. But the expression ''added'' has obviously

reference only to the fact that there were other accused in the case; and I cannot in any case consider that a single word can be regarded as

containing a record of the reasons, required by the section, to be given by the Magistrate, in making an order for compensation.

I may also point out that the appellate Magistrate in this case in paragraph 3 states the following : ""As none of the prosecution witnesses has said

anything implicating Accused 4 and 5 in the lower Court, they have been rightly awarded a compensation, at the cost of the complainant. If this

statement of fact were correct, I have no doubt that it might amount to a proper reason for awarding compensation : but unfortunately this is a

statement made not by Magistrate who made the order for compensation, but by the appellate Magistrate and what is more the statement is

obviously incorrect. There was at least one witness, on the prosecution side who directly spoke to the Accused 4 and 5 being present. In these

circumstances, I consider that the very wholesome provision of law in Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the Magistrate to

record his reasons, for ordering a compensation to be paid had not been complied with and that therefore the order for compensation is wrong and

should be set aside. If the compensation ordered has already been paid to the Accused 4 and 5, they will be directed each to repay the amount to

the complainant.