In this case a compensation order under Sect. 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is attacked as illegal.
It is argued that the facts appearing in evidence constitute an offence under Sect. 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which is triable only by a Sessions Court, and that, in consequence, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to act under Sect. 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In our opinion the offence disclosed was one under Sect. 467; but the Magistrate undoubtedly regarded it as one under Sect. 465 of the Indian Penal Code, (which he had jurisdiction to try) and specifically refers to a latter section in his order. Does the former fact affect the legality of his order of compensation? We think not. The Magistrate undoubtedly proceeded under Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and not under Chapter 18: and King Emperor v. Ayyan and Vellayappa Udayan(1), is clear authority for holding that if the case had ended in a conviction, that conviction would not be illegal merely because the offence committed really fell under a more serious section and was not one which the Magistrate was competent to try. Applying the line of reasoning adopted in that judgment to the present case, we think it must be held that as the Magistrate was not proceeding illegally in trying the accused for the lesser offence, he was not acting illegally in awarding compensation when he found the accusation to be frivolous or vexatious. Two cases have been cited for the petitioner. Of these, Emperor v. Chhaba Dolsang…Accused.(2) is easily distinguishable, for in that case, the Magistrate was certainly acting under Chapter 18 and passed his order of discharge under Sect. 209. The other, Het Ram v. Ganga Sahai(3), is the decision of a single Judge and the judgment leaves it doubtful which offence the Magistrate conceived himself to be enquiring into. We do not think there are any grounds for interference; and we dismiss this petition.
C. K.Petition dismissed.
Comments