Skip to content


In Re: Valli Mitha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Application for Revision No. 298 of 1919
Judge
Reported in(1920)22BOMLR195; 55Ind.Cas.860
AppellantIn Re: Valli Mitha
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of l898), sections 250, 4(o) - frivolous or vaxatious complaint-compensation to accused-complaint to recover legal fare-public conveyances act [bom. act vi of 1867), section s3.;a proceeding to recover the legal fare, under section 28 of the bombay public conveyances act, 1867, is not a complaint of an offence within the meaning of b.250 of the criminal procedure code, 1898. hence, if such a complaint' is frivolous or vexatious, no compensation can be awarded. - .....against the complainant on the merits and held that what the opponent had offered was the proper legal fare. he however held that the complaint was vexatious and ordered the complainant to pay to the opponent rs. 25 as compensation under section 250 of the criminal procedure code. haying regard to the language of section 28 of the act it appears that it provides summary remedy for the recovery of the legal fare and that a complaint under the section is not a complaint in respect of an offence within the meaning of section 250, criminal procedure code. it is clear from the language of the other sections in the act that when the legislature intends that a particular act or omission should be treated as an offence, appropriate language is used to indicate the intention. here in section 28.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. In this case a victoria-driver lodged a complaint against the opponent under Section 28 of the Bombay Act VI of 1867 in the Court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for the lawful fare due to him. The Magistrate found against the complainant on the merits and held that what the opponent had offered was the proper legal fare. He however held that the complaint was vexatious and ordered the complainant to pay to the opponent Rs. 25 as compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Haying regard to the language of Section 28 of the Act it appears that it provides summary remedy for the recovery of the legal fare and that a complaint under the section is not a complaint in respect of an offence within the meaning of Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear from the language of the other sections in the Act that when the Legislature intends that a particular act or omission should be treated as an offence, appropriate language is used to indicate the intention. Here in Section 28 reference is made to the fare and reasonable compensation for loss of time. It, cannot be said that the omission to pay the legal fare is made punishable under the section. I do not think that the last clause which empowers the Magistrate to sentence the defaulter to imprisonment, for default of payment of the sums referred to in the previous part of the section makes the alleged omission on the part of the party against whom the complaint is made under the section an offence. The Magistrate had, therefore, no power to make an order under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, in this case. It is not necessary to examine whether on the merits the order of compensation is proper. I would set aside the order of compensation and direct the amount, if paid, to be refunded to the complainant.

Crump, J.

2. I agree.


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