Whether action initiated U/S 250 of CrPC by one Magistrate can be continued by his successor Magistrate?

The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as is evident, is equivalent to his jurisdiction to impose fine on an accused. The Magistrate of the First Class can impose fine to the extent of Rs 2000 only and a Magistrate of lesser denomination can impose lesser fines as enjoined under the law. Now, here was a case of a Chief Judicial Magistrate who had acquitted the appellant. His jurisdiction to impose fine was only up to Rs 2000. Thus, the scope of enquiry under Section 250 CrPC is only an effort to award to the accused a bare sum of Rs 2000, if at all, after hearing the complainant. The enquiry in the nature being so small and narrow, the legislature perhaps thought that it should be in the nature of an addenda to the main enquiry or trial. Therefore, the view has emerged in all the High Courts in the country that the same Magistrate alone can initiate action and pass the final orders. To mention a few precedents in that regard, attention be invited to Rajaram Majhi v. Panchanan Ghosh, AIR 1929 Cal 762, Emperor v. Mohd. Alan, AIR 1935 Sind 321 (sic) and Ram Nath v. Bashir-Ud-Din, and many others which exist, as have been noticed in the last mentioned Punjab case. It would thus be worthwhile to preserve the interpretation of the provision which would not disturb the unanimous understanding of the High Courts on the subject. We hold accordingly.

 Supreme Court of India

Nandkumar Krishnarao Navgire vs Jananath Laxman Kushalkar And ... on 23 July, 1997

Citations: 1999 CriLJ 5022, JT 1998 (4) SC 249, 1998 (2) MPLJ 111, (1998) 2 SCC 355

Bench: M Punchhi, K Venkataswami

Print Page

Whether court can grant compensation to accused for wrongful prosecution under S 250 of CRPC?

 Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law,
the factual matrix of the case at hand is required to be
appreciated. On a close scrutiny of the judgment of the
learned trial Judge, it is evident that he has been guided
basically by three factors, namely, that the State
Government has not established Forensic Science
Laboratories despite the orders passed by this Court; that
there has been delay in getting the seized articles tested;
and that the seizing officer had not himself verified by using
his experience and expertise that the contraband article was
opium. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is a
different matter altogether. As far as the delay is concerned
that is the fulcrum of the reasoning for acquittal. It is apt to
note that the police while patrolling had noticed the accused
persons and their behaviour at that time was suspicious.
There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any
lapse on the part of the seizing officer. Nothing has been
brought by way of evidence to show that the prosecution
had falsely implicated them. There is nothing to remotely
suggest that there was any malice. The High Court, as is
noticed, has not applied its mind to the concept of grant of
compensation to the accused persons in a case of present
nature. There is no material whatsoever to show that the
prosecution has deliberately roped in the accused persons.
There is no malafide or malice like the fact situation which
are projected in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Thus,
the view expressed by the learned trial Judge is absolutely
indefensible and the affirmance thereof by the High Court is
wholly unsustainable.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2015
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 2623 of 2015)
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Jainudeen Shekh and Anr
Citation;2015 (4) crimes 342 SC,(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 380; (2016) 1 SCC 514

Print Page