The Court made the following ORDER:—
In this case a compensation order under section 250, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is attacked as illegal.
It is argued that the facts appearing in evidence constitute an offence under section 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 section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In our opinion the offence disclosed was one under section 467; but the Magistrate undoubtedly regarded it as one under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code (which he had jurisdiction to try), and specifically refers to the 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 XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and not under Chapter XIII and King-Emperor v. Ayyan(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 petitioner. Of these, Emperor v. Chhaba Dolsang…Accused.(2) is easily distinguishable, for in that case, the Magistrate was cert only acting under Chapter XVIII and passed his order of discharge under section 209. The other, Het Ram v. Ganga Sakai(3), is the decision of a single Judge and the judgment leaves it doubtful which offence the Magistrate ??? himself to be inquiring into. We do not ??? there are any grounds for interference; and we ??? this petition.
M.H.H
Comments