Skip to content


In Re: Jonnalagedda Appala Narasayya Bhukta and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1920)39MLJ484
AppellantIn Re: Jonnalagedda Appala Narasayya Bhukta and ors.
Cases ReferredQueen Empress v. Chiragh Ali
Excerpt:
- - but in our opinion it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases.order1. reading sections 250 and 253 of the code of criminal procedure together, we cannot say that the order for compensation made in spite of the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is illegal. but in our opinion it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases. directly a magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering the making of an order against him under section 250, criminal procedure code, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the criminal procedure code and is on his defence though not actually accused. the code provides for a record of his objection and it seems to us that his position is made by the words of the code stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Reading Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together, we cannot say that the order for compensation made in spite of the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is illegal. But in our opinion it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases. Directly a Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering the making of an order against him under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defence though not actually accused. The Code provides for a record of his objection and it seems to us that his position is made by the words of the Code stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for prosecution for an offence under Section 182 or Section 211, I.P.C. is sought, and in such cases this Court has always required that notice and opportunity to meet should be given and the party permitted to adduce evidence though Section 195 has no such provision. We think that he should be allowed to call his witnesses, for until the magistrate has heard them, he cannot say whether their evidence will not help him to decide first, the propriety of such an order and secondly the extent of the culpability of the complainant to be expressed in the amount of the compensation. The case of Queen Empress v. Chiragh Ali (1898) A.W.N. 198 relied on by Mr. Satya-narayana who appears for the person who received compensation, was a case where the accused was acquitted and such acquittal in a summons case could only be after all the evidence for the prosecution was taken, and in a warrant case after charge framed. We therefore set aside the order for compensation.


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