Skip to content


In Re: Mahadev Ramkrishna Karkare - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 92 of 1922
Judge
Reported in(1922)24BOMLR805
AppellantIn Re: Mahadev Ramkrishna Karkare
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 250-frivolous and vexatious complaint-compensation to accused-complainant must be heard before an order it passed.;an order under section 250 of the criminal procedure code can be passed only after the complainant is afforded an opportunity of putting forward his objections to the order. it is not proper to shutout the opportunity on the ground that the complainant has been absenting himself on the appointed days of hearing. - - it is clear that under the proviso, the magistrate was bound to hear the complainant before making the order which in the present case he failed to do......understand how any inference could be drawn against the complainant from his absence. he was not bound to be present at those dates of hearing, or at any rate, on the day on which the order was made. there is nothing to show that he was bound to be present, and in fact he was absent. the magistrate has read the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 250 as though it contained the words if the complainant be present.' but those words are not there and it is difficult to read words in the proviso which are not there. it is clear that under the proviso, the magistrate was bound to hear the complainant before making the order which in the present case he failed to do. it appears from the judgment that the complainant's pleader was there, but he was unable to urge any objection on behalf of.....
Judgment:

Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.

1. In this case the Magistrate has made the order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving to the complainant an opportunity of putting forward his objections to the order. The reason given by the Magistrate for adopting that course is that in his view the complainant had been absenting himself on the appointed days of hearing, and, as he conjectured, probably fearing that he would be called upon to pay compensation. It is difficult to understand how any inference could be drawn against the complainant from his absence. He was not bound to be present at those dates of hearing, or at any rate, on the day on which the order was made. There is nothing to show that he was bound to be present, and in fact he was absent. The Magistrate has read the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 250 as though it contained the words if the complainant be present.' But those words are not there and it is difficult to read words in the proviso which are not there. It is clear that under the proviso, the Magistrate was bound to hear the complainant before making the order which in the present case he failed to do. It appears from the judgment that the complainant's pleader was there, but he was unable to urge any objection on behalf of the complainant as he had no instructions from the complainant on the point, Under the circumstances the presence of the pleader on that date could not be treated as dispensing with the necessity of the Magistrate's calling upon the complainant to state his objections to any order that he might propose to make under Section 250. On this ground alone the order in the present case ought to be set aside.

2. I, therefore, make the rule absolute, and direct the amount, if paid, to be refunded to the complainant.

3. The accused in this case, though served, has not appeared to support the order.

Crump, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //