Debabrata Mookerjee, J.
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Subdivisiona Magistrate, Raiganj, dated the 29th April, 1955, by which the petitioner who was the complainant in a case was ordered, under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pay compensation of Rs. 50/- to the opposite party Sudhirendra Nath Sarkar. In default of payment, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
2. The petitioner is a Union Agricultural Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, Government of west Bengal. On the relevant date he was posted at Kaliaganj and the opposite party Sudhirendra Nath Sarkar was his immediate office superior holding the appointment of an Agricultural Inspector.
3. The petitioner instituted a complaint charging the opposite party with having committed an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code upon the allegation that the petitioner's salary, including allowance, for the month of June 1952 had been misappropriated by ther opposite party.
4. in support of the case thus made the petitioner examined himself and three witnesses. An attempt was made to show the circumstances in which his pay for the month of June 1952, sent by money-order, did not reach the petitioner.
5. To the charge thus framed under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, the opposite party pleaded not guilty, and his defence seems to be that the salary, including allowance, for the month of June 1952 had in fact been paid to the petitioner. A certain receipt was produced at the trial in evidence of the payment. Some evidence was also called for the purpose of showing that the circumstances alleged by the petitioner as complainant in that case had not been established.
6. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 29th April 1955 acquitted the opposite party of the charge under Section 403 and by an order of the same date called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the opposite party under the provisions of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the complaint which the petitioner had made was false and vexatious.
7. It appears that no time was allowed to the petitioner to show cause why an order should not be made against him under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the result that the petitioner showed cause then and there and the learned Magistrate considered the cause thus shown and made straightway an order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which he directed the petitioner to pay compensation to the opposite party. It is against this order that the present Rule has been obtained.
8. Apart from the question that the petitioner was not given any time whatever to show cause, it appears from the order itself that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate does not possess a correct appreciation of the requirements of Section 250 of the Code. In the main order passed by the Magistrate acquitting the opposite party there is hardly any indication about the Magistrate's views on the evidence from which it could reasonably be inferred that he considered the case brought by the petitioner as being false or vexatious. In order that an order under Section 250 of the Code might be made, the Magistrate's order acquitting the accused has to show on the face of it that he entirely disbelieved the prosecution caseand that in his opinion the prosecution was clearly false, vexatious or a frivolous one. The reasons given by the Magistrate in the order acquitting the opposite party are somewhat of a lame character, and they by no means indicate that the Magistrate felt so strongly in the matter as to have thought it necessary in the interests of justice to make the order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. In the course of the hearing of this revision petition I was taken through a considerable portion of the evidence in the case by the learned Advocates appearing on both aides; I have not the slightest doubt that In view of what appears from the evidence, the duty of the learned Magistrate clearly was to insist upon production of further evidence in the case under the provisions of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did nothing of the kind. The complainant must of course abide the consequences of his failure to produce adequate evidence before the Court; and so he has suffered on that account inasmuch as he lost the case and the opposite party was acquitted. But before an order can be made under Section 250 of the Code the position cannot possibly be left at that. The Magistrate clearly failed to pursue the matter further, particularly that aspect of the allegation concerning the fact that the audit report revealed a suggestion that the salary for the month of June 1952 had not in fact reached the hands of the petitioner. In any event, these are circumstances which cannot possibly be lightly brushed aside while considering the propriety of the order which is now being challenged before me.
10. In view of what I have observed, I donot think the order under Section 250 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure was at all justified. Theresult, therefore, is that this Rule is made absolute and the order made by the Magistrate under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure isset aside.