NARAIN HAZAM Vs. RAMDHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision raises an interesting question of some importance. The question is if a Magistrate vested with powers under Section 30, Criminal P. C., can award compensation to the accused person under the provisions of Section 250, Criminal P. C., when the offence he tries is an offence which is triable by the Court of session under the eighth column of Schedule II, Criminal P. C.

(2.) The material facts are the following. On 29-4-1951, the petitioner Narain Hazam lodged a first information at Dhanwar Police Station against four persons, opposite parties before us, in which the accused Ramdhari Singh, opposite party No. 1, of having set fire to his house and Mahabir Singh, Suba Singh and Mathura Singh, opposite parties 2 to 4, with having abetted Ramdhari Singh in the commission of the offence of arson. On the basis of the first information, the local police made an investigation and submitted a charge-sheet against the opposife party. Ramdhari Singh was charged with an offence under Section 436, Penal Code, and Mahabir Singh, Suba Singh and Mathura Singh were charged with abetment of the said offence. Mr. S. F. Azam, a magistrate vested with powers under Section 30, Criminal P. C., tried the opposite party. He found, on a consideration of the evidence, that the accusation against the opposite party was false and frivolous. He acquitted the four members of the opposite party, and asked the petitioner to show cause why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the accused persons. The petitioner showed cause. The learned magistrate was not satisfied with it, and made an order under the provisions of Section 250, Criminal P. C., that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 50/- to each of the four members of the opposite party. Against the order of the learned Magistrate there was an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is unfortunate that the opposite party did not enter appearance; and in spite of notice to the Deputy Commissioner, the State has not been represented before us.