Skip to content


In Re: Jonnalagadda Appalanarasayya Bhukta and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in59Ind.Cas.913
AppellantIn Re: Jonnalagadda Appalanarasayya Bhukta and ors.
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Chiragh Ali A.W.N.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 250 - compensation, order for, without examining all complainant's witnesses, legality of. - - but, in our opinion, it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases directly the magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering making an order against him under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the criminal procedure code and is on his defense, though not actually accused......informs a complainant that he is considering making an order against him under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the criminal procedure code and is on his defense, 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 offense under section 182 or 211, indian penal code, 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.....
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 the Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering making an order against him under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defense, 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 offense under Section 182 or 211, Indian Penal Code, 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 A.W.N. (1898) 198 relied on by Mr. Satyanarayana, 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 //