Thonokadavath Awalla and Another vs Ammian Mannil Kuttiali Valiaparambath Korumban Vs Koroth Kandiyil Krishna Kurup

In these references the question raised is, whether compensation can be awarded u/s 250, Criminal Procedure Code, notwithstanding that the

cases originated in complaints to Village Magistrates. The Sub-Magistrate''s order of compensation has been set aside by the Joint Magistrate with

reference to the decision of Arulanatham Pillai, In re 13 Ind. Cas. 221 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 558 : 22 M.L.J. 138 : 13 Cri.L.J. 29, and there are no

doubt other cases, including one (Criminal Revision Case No. 627 of 1913) decided by one of us, as well as Emperor v. Thammanna Reddi 2

Weir 318 in the authorised reports, in the same sense. But the relevant considerations were greatly affected by the decision in Sessions Judge of

Tinnevelly Division v. Sivan Chetty 1 Ind. Cas. 187 : 9 C.L.J. 170 and we disagree with the decision in Arulinatham Pillai, In re 13 Ind. Cas. 221:

(1911) 2 M.W.N. 558, in which the contrary view is taken. We prefer to follow the more recent authority, Nachimuthu Chetty v. Muthusami

Chetty 27 M.L.J. 37 : 15 Cri.L.J. 431 : (1914) M.W.N. 804, in which that decision was dissented from. We, therefore, answer the question

raised in the affirmative and set aside the Joint Magistrate''s orders, restoring those of the Sub-Magistrate.