Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bahawal Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All111(1); (1918)ILR40All79
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBahawal Singh
Excerpt:
.....against him was frivolous or vexatious, the magistrate may, in his discretion, direct the person upon whose information the accusation was made to compensation to the accused. if jagmohan dom gave information to the missionary with the intention that it should be conveyed to the district magistrate with a view to a prosecution, then clearly jagmohan dom was the person upon whose information the accusation was made. it clearly, therefore, was upon his information that the accusation against the constable was made in court before the trying magistrate......of rs. 10 the revd. g. spooner made an inquiry on his account and then reported the matter to the district magistrate. the district magistrate thereupon directed the prosecution of the constable. the court trying the case found the charge frivolous, acquitted the accused and directed jagmohan to pay compensation. the magistrate in his reference merely states that the order does not appear to him to be legal. he does not give any grounds for his belief or opinion section 250 says ' that if in any case instituted upon information given to a magistrate, a person is accused of any offence before a magistrate and the magistrate by whom case heard, discharges or acquits him and is satisfied that the accusation against him was frivolous or vexatious, the magistrate may, in his discretion,.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The District Magistrate of Benares has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order passed under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing Jagmohan Dom to pay Rs. 10 as compensation to the police constable be set aside. Jagmohan Dom gave information to the Revd. G. Spooner of the Wesleyan Mission to the effect that the accused constable had extorted from him the sum of Rs. 10 The Revd. G. Spooner made an inquiry on his account and then reported the matter to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereupon directed the prosecution of the constable. The court trying the case found the charge frivolous, acquitted the accused and directed Jagmohan to pay compensation. The Magistrate in his reference merely states that the order does not appear to him to be legal. He does not give any grounds for his belief or opinion Section 250 says ' that if in any case instituted upon information given to a Magistrate, a person is accused of any offence before a Magistrate and the Magistrate by whom case heard, discharges or acquits him and is satisfied that the accusation against him was frivolous or vexatious, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, direct the person upon whose information the accusation was made to compensation to the accused.' The question, therefore, is whether it was upon the information of Jagmohan Dom that the accusation against the constable was made. The information in the present case no doubt was conveyed to the District Magistrate through the Revd. G. Spooner. If Jagmohan Dom gave information to the Missionary with the intention that it should be conveyed to the District Magistrate with a view to a prosecution, then clearly Jagmohan Dom was the person upon whose information the accusation was made. The mere fact that he utilized the Missionary for the purpose of conveying the information to the District Magistrate cannot protect him. If on the other hand he merely in conversation told the Missionary about the case without any desire for or view to a subsequent prosecution or to the conveyance of the information to the District Magistrate, then he was hardly liable for the intervention of a busy body who took it upon himself to make a complaint to the District Magistrate. In this latter circumstance it would be the Revd. G. Spooner who would be liable to pay compensation. I have examined the letter sent by the Missionary to the District Magistrate, and that letter is sufficient to show that Jagmohan did intend to make a complaint with a view to securing the punishment of the constable. It clearly, therefore, was upon his information that the accusation against the constable was made in court before the trying Magistrate. In these circumstances I do not think that the order passed was illegal. Let the record be returned.


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