Pigot and Hill, JJ.
1. We have read the explanation of the Deputy Magistrate forwarded upon receipt of our order of the 24th August.
2. The distinction pointed out by the Deputy Magistrate between Section 250, now repealed, and Section 560, that at present in force, does no doubt exist.
3. But in this case the peon was not the real complainant, the Munsif, acting judicially, was the real complainant, and although the peon was nominally informant in the case before the Deputy Magistrate, the complaint was not his, nor can the proceedings properly be said to have been instituted before the Deputy Magistrate upon his information.
4. We agree with the Sessions Judge that under these circumstances the peon ought not to be held liable to pay compensation under the section. We think the Deputy Magistrate fell into an error in not noticing that the law was set in motion against the accused, nut by the peon but by a judicial officer acting as such.
5. Very possibly the Munsif was misled by the peon, who may have told him the story which the Deputy Magistrate found to be false; and this may perhaps have led the Deputy Magistrate to treat the peon as the real complainant. But though a not unnatural error, if this was what influenced him, we think it was an error. In such a case this section does not apply.
6. We accordingly set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate of 4th July 1892, ordering compensation to be paid by Bharat Chunder Nath to Jabed Ali Biswas.