Skip to content


Palani Goundan Vs. Krishnappa Goundan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1930Mad929; 129Ind.Cas.37; (1930)59MLJ319
AppellantPalani Goundan
RespondentKrishnappa Goundan and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 250, 202 - summary trial--order for compensation--recording of reasons, necessity of--omission--mere irregularity. - - there being thus no express exception from the general rule laid down by section 262, it follows that even in summary trials the requisition of section 250 must be satisfied. 3. the next question is whether in this case they have been satisfied. i am not able to say that the requirements of law have not been satisfied......petitioner. but that learned judge was of opinion that the order of the bench does not contain a record of reasons for awarding compensation although he also thought that the omission had not prejudiced the appellant and, therefore, did not under section 537, invalidate the order. taking the record of the trial as a whole and remembering that the record is itself the record of a summary trial it is not quite accurate to say that it does not contain a record of reasons for awarding compensation. after the evidence was closed, the bench put the following question to the complainant:the case brought by you has been proved to be false and vexatious and it is clear that this has been brought simply to harass the accused. please show cause why a compensation of rs. 25 to each of the accused.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Krishnan Pandalai, J.

1. This is a petition to revise an order awarding compensation to six accused (at Rs. 10 each) made by the First Class Bench of Magistrates of Dharapuram and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, Two objections are raised (1) that the record of the trial does not contain, as it should, the reasons why the Bench considered the complaint to be false and vexatious, and (2) that this vitiates the order.

2. On the first point on which there seems to be no direct decision of this Court, the contention must be upheld that even in records of summary trials under Chap. XXII of the Criminal Procedure Code where the Magistrate or Bench acts under Section 250, the requisites of that section as to recording of reasons must be carried out. This seems to follow from the provisions of Section 262 which lays down that the procedure prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in summons cases and that prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in warrant cases even when they are tried in a summary way. The only exceptions to this rule are contained in the next two following Sections 263 and 264, The former applies to cases where no appeal lies and the latter to cases in which an appeal lies, which means, to cases where an appealable sentence is or is not passed upon the accused. These Sections 263 and 264 do not, if reasonably read, provide for proceedings under Section 250 by which alone compensation to the accused is ordered against the complainant. There being thus no express exception from the general rule laid down by Section 262, it follows that even in summary trials the requisition of Section 250 must be satisfied.

3. The next question is whether in this case they have been satisfied. This point was apparently not raised before the Sessions Judge on behalf of the petitioner. But that learned Judge was of opinion that the order of the Bench does not contain a record of reasons for awarding compensation although he also thought that the omission had not prejudiced the appellant and, therefore, did not under Section 537, invalidate the order. Taking the record of the trial as a whole and remembering that the record is itself the record of a summary trial it is not quite accurate to say that it does not contain a record of reasons for awarding compensation. After the evidence was closed, the Bench put the following question to the complainant:

The Case brought by you has been proved to be false and vexatious and it is clear that this has been brought simply to harass the accused. Please show cause why a compensation of Rs. 25 to each of the accused or Rs. 160 in all should not be ordered.

4. The complainant answered that the case brought by him was true. The Bench, therefor, go on to state that when called on to explain why the compensation should not be ordered for bringing this false and vexatious complaint, P.W. No. 1 says that his complaint was true and that this is no explanation at all. Then they make the order directing him to pay Rs. 25 each. Reading this in a fair and reasonable way the passage where the Bench said that it is clear that this case has been brought simply to harass the accused although it occurs as a portion of the question put to the complainant, may be understood and must have been intended as a record of their own reasons for thinking that the complaint was false and vexatious. They had just then taken the evidence and the impression made by it upon their minds was still quite fresh and they concluded, as they said in plain terms, that the case was false and vexatious because it was brought to harass the accused. I am not able to say that the requirements of law have not been satisfied. It is needless to add that, even if there had been any omission, Section 537 would have been sufficient to cure the omission in view of the fact that the petitioner himself did not raise the question before the Sessions Judge.

5. The petition is dismissed


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