DAVE, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision by the complainant against the order of the Second Class Magistrate, Desuri, dated 31st March, 1952.
(2.) THE applicant had filed a complaint under sec. 424 I. P. C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bali. THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate sent it to the Second Class Magistrate who tried the case and discharged the accused. At the same time, he passed an order against the applicant ordering him to pay Rs. 40/- as compensation to the accused since he thought that the complaint was false and vexatious. He presented a revision petition before the District Magistrate, Pali against this order but he was not successful and therefore he has come to this Court. It appears from the order of the District Magistrate that the complainant wanted to support his case before him and the learned District Magistrate therefore considered the case on the merits and came to the conclusion that the complaint was rightly dismissed by the trial court. In the revision petition before this Court, the complainant against put the same objections as were advanced before the District Magistrate but at the time of arguments the applicant's learned advocate abandoned all arguments to support the complaint. His only contention in this Court is that the Magistrate has committed illegality in ordering the complainant to pay compensation to the accused since he has not complied with the provisions of sec. 250 Cr. P. C. From the perusal of the record of the trial court, this contention seems to be correct. It appears that the learned Magistrate while discharging the accused, ordered the complainant to pay penalty without complying with the provisions of sec. 250 Cr. P. C. Sec. 250 Cr. P. C. requires that in case a Magistrate discharges or acquits all or any of the accused and is of opinion that the accusation against them or any of them is false and either frivolous or vexatious, then the Magistrate may by his order of discharge or acquittal either call upon the complainant, if he is present in court, to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. In case the complainant is not present in court, the Magistrate should direct the issue of summons to him to appear and show cause why he should not pay such compensation. In the present case the trial court did not call upon the complainant to show cause against paying compensation to the accused. On the other hand, the court proceeded to fix the compensation and then in the order-sheet it was mentioned that the complainant should show cause against the order which was passed by the court. This procedure was clearly against the express provisions of law. As mentioned above, sec. 250 Cr. P. C. requires that the Magistrate should first call upon the complainant to show cause and if he is unable to satisfy him then only he can pass order to pay compensation to the accused. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 250 farther requires that when the complainant trays to show cause to the court, the Magistrate should record and consider the cause which the complainant or informant may show to him and if after such consideration he is satisfied that the accusation was false or either frivolous or vexatious, then for reasons to be recorded by him, he should direct that compensation (up to the amount prescribed in the section) may be paid by the complainant to the accused. After discharging the accused, the position of the complainant is almost reversed and therefore, the Magistrate before making an order for compensation should give him a proper chance to be heard and then without a prejudiced mind he should decide whether the complainant should be ordered to pay compensation to the accused. In the present case, the Magistrate has failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 250 Cr. P. C. Under the circumstances, his order dated 31st March, 1952, cannot be maintained and is set aside. The file be sent back to the Second Class Magistrate Desuri with direction that he should proceed according to sec. 250 Cr. P. C. in the light of the observations made above. .;