AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 a Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering making an order against him u/s 250, Criminal Procedure
Code, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defence 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 offence u/s 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
contains no such provision. We think that he should be allowed to call witnesses, for until the Magistrate has heard them he cannot say whether their evidence will not help him to decide (firstly), 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. Queen-Empress v. Chiragh Ali (1898) 18 A.W.N., 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 was framed. We therefore set aside the order for
compensation.