B.P. Beri, C.J.
1. In the Police Station, Hindaun. Omprakash lodged a report that on October 30. 1965. when he left few of his articles outside his house and went in the house to collect some other articles, the articles which he had left outside were stolen. Omprakash added that he was trying to locate the articles and his servant informed him that he had seen the stolen articles at the shop of one Murarilal. He prayed for action. The police submitted a report of a case against one Jagdish Prasad under Sections 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, Jagdish Prasad was acquitted and in the order of acquittal the learned Magistrate observed that the case instituted against him was false and he issued notice under Section 250 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure asking Omprakash to show cause why he should not be called upon to pay compensation as envisaged by the section. Omprakash resisted the demand. The learned Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the case was false and was intended to harass Jagdish Prasad and ordered that Omprakash should pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to him (Jagdish Prasad) by way of compensation as contemplated by Section 250 of the Code of Crrninal Procedure (old). An appeal was taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Gangapur City but without success. Omprakash is before us asking for the revision of the order of the learned Magistrate dated January 15, 1969.
2. The principal argument urged on behalf of the applicant is that Omprakash had merely informed the police of the event of theft and that the stolen goods were found by his servant to be at the shop of one Murarilal. If the police as a result of the investigation brought wrong person to trial, he cannot be held answerable for compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old).
3. The learned Counsel for Jagdish Prasad maintained that an accusation was made and it is of no consequence whether it was made against Jagdish Prasad or Murarilal and, therefore, Omprakash is answerable for the same.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State also supported Mr. Garg Counsel for Jagdish Prasad.
5. The learned Counsel for the parties have not been able to bring to my notice any decided case answering the interesting question that arises before me and therefore it will have to be resolved on the plain language of the statute. Section 250 curtailed for the purposes of this case would read something like this:
'If in any case instituted upon information to a police officer one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused and is of opinion that the accusation against them or any of them was false and either frivolous or vexatious, the Magistrate may. by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the persons upon whose information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused.
In order to ascertain the objectives, which the section aims to attain, in my opinion, the crucial word is 'compensation'. It is to make good the loss sustained by a person, who faces a false and frivolous or vexatious criminal charge before a Magistrate that a summary procedure has been provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure itself to indemnify such an accused who has been harassed. The intention appears to be to afford quick relief to such persons. The question that confronts for my answer is where a first information report accuses 'A' of an offence but the police after its investigation came to the conclusion that it was 'B' who had committed the offence could the informant be saddled with compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the case is found to be false and frivolous or vexatious? My answer to this question is plainly in the negatives and my reasons are: If the informant gives information which proves to be false structurily then he is answerable under the Indian Penal Code. If he accuses 'A' but the police on account of its investigation reaches a conclusion contrary to it and puts up 'B' for trial, it will be a travesty of justice to saddle the informant, for causing harassment of some one whom he never accused and who came to be accused on account of the investigation over which he had no control. The general law of compensation would be opposed to such a situation. It will be saddling the informant for compensation for ah accusation of which he is not the author. After all the investigating officer was responsible for bringing 'B' into the dock and not the informant. The important words in Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are: 'upon information given to a police officer a person is accused before a Magistrate and the Magistrate is of opinion that the case against the accused was-false and either frivolous or vexatious.' A person is said to be accusing another, according to common dictionary meaning when he charges him with a fault, indict, blame, lay the fault against a person. In the case before me, Omprakash never accused or laid the blame at the door of 'J' who came to be prosecuted and I cannot therefore, in justice say that Omprakash should pay compensation for the act or omission of Police. The person on the language of Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, should be the same whom the informant accuses. Since the accusation against Omprakash does not fall within the four corners of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order passed by the learned Magistrate and upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fold) cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. If the amount has been paid, it shall be refunded without delay.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant asks for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. I am unable to certify this case as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The prayer is refused.