Skip to content


The Queen-empress Vs. Polavarapu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad563
AppellantThe Queen-empress
RespondentPolavarapu
Cases ReferredIshri v. Bakshi I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 4(a), 250 - compensation--complaint to police. - .....before the magistrate with a charge sheet.there was no complaint as defined by the code, and the case not having been instituted upon complaint,' the magistrate had no power to award compensation under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure. the award of compensation is accordingly quashed and the 5 rupees must be refunded to the person from whom it was levied.
Judgment:

Hutchins, J.

1. The decision of Mr. Justice Tyrrell in Ishri v. Bakshi I.L.R. 6 All. 96 seems correct, although his reasons have not been fully-stated. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines a complaint to mean 'the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code, that some person has committed an offence.' Here the accusation was made to a police officer who took action and laid the matter before the Magistrate with a charge sheet.

There was no complaint as defined by the Code, and the case not having been instituted upon complaint,' the Magistrate had no power to award compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The award of compensation is accordingly quashed and the 5 rupees must be refunded to the person from whom it was levied.


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