Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Fakir Das Dutt vs Gaya Dhar Jana And Anr. on 6 January, 1956

Kailash Chandra vs Laxminarayan And Ors. on 4 August, 1965

6. According to the language of this subsection it appears that it casts a duty on the learned Magistrate before ordering compensation to take into consideration the cause shown by the complainant or informant and then to record his satisfaction regarding the nature of the complaint that it was false and either frivolous or vexatious and it is then that he can direct the petitioner to pay the compensation to the persons who have been acquitted. To my mind, the requirement of this Sub-section is mandatory and the learned Magistrate was under a duty to record his finding irrespective of what he had held in the judgment of acquittal as to whether the accusation brought by the complainant was false and either frivolous or vexatious. It was also necessary that the Magistrate should have given reasons for recording such finding before he could ask the complainant to pay compensation to the acquitted persons. I am supported in my view by the observations of Mookerji J. in Fakir Das Dutt's case, AIR 1957 Cal 225 where the learned Judge has observed as follows:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Dass Ghosh vs The State And Ors. on 9 May, 1958

5. Mr. Kishore Mookerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that in the present case no appeal lies and the complainant could only file an application in revision to challenge the order of the learned Magistrate. He has referred to the case of Fakir Das Dutt v. Gaya Dhar Jana . Dehahrata Mookerf'ee J., who decided that case held that Section 250, Sub-section (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribed the pecuniary limit of the Magistrate's power of directing payment of compensation. It has nothing to do with the right of appeal which is conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 250 of the Code. It was argued by Mr. Mookerjee that a reference to Sub-section (2) made it clear that unless and until a compensation which was paid to a particular person exceeded the sum of Rs. 50/- there could be no appeal whatever. This argument was sought to be reinforced by a reference to the closing words of Sub-section (2) of Section 250. It is to be observed that a right of appeal is specifically dealt with in Sub-section (3) and as was pointed out by Debabrata Mookerjee T., with whom I entirely agree that it would not be right to mix up the provisions of these two sub-sections for the purpose of sustaining an argument that unless and until a person had been ordered to pay a compensatinn exceeding a sum of Rs. 50/-, he could not in any event have preferred I an appeal. The provisions contained in Sub-sections (2) land (3) are quite indenendent of each other. In one case the duty of the Magistrate in making an order under Section 250 & the pecuniary limit of punishment are dealt with and in the other case the forum of appeal is indicated. I therefore hold that the petitioner had clearly a right of appeal in the present case and therefore under Section 439, Sub-section (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure no proceeding by way of revision could be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed but had not filed any.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1