Question: On a complaint made by C, a Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence under sub- Section (2) of 199 of the CrPC and tries the accused. The Court finds that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation and hence orders C to pay Rs. 2,500 to the accused by way of compensation. C challenges the said order. Decide. [U.P.C.J. 1997] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [On a complaint made by C, a Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence under sub-Section (2)...
Question: On a complaint made by C, a Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence under sub- Section (2) of 199 of the CrPC and tries the accused. The Court finds that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation and hence orders C to pay Rs. 2,500 to the accused by way of compensation. C challenges the said order. Decide. [U.P.C.J. 1997]
Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [On a complaint made by C, a Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence under sub-Section (2) of 199 of the CrPC and tries the accused. The Court finds that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation and hence orders C to pay Rs. 2,500 to the accused by way of compensation. C challenges the said order. Decide.]
Answer
The relevant provision from Section 237 of the CrPC on the procedure in cases instituted under section 199(2) are as follows:
(1) A Court of Session taking cognizance of an offence under Sub-Section (2) of section 199 shall try the case in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted otherwise than on a police report before a Court of Magistrate;
Provided that the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed shall, unless the Court of Session, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs, be examined as a witness for the prosecution.
(3) If in any such case, the Court discharges or acquits all or any of the accused and is of opinion that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation against them or any of them, it may, by its order of discharge or acquittal, direct the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed (other than the President, Vice-President or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory) to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one.
(4) The Court shall record and consider any cause which may be shown by the person so directed, and if it is satisfied that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation, it may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order that compensation to such amount not exceeding one thousand rupees, as it may determine, be paid by such person to the accused or to each or any of them.
(5) Compensation awarded under Sub-Section (4) shall be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by a Magistrate.
(7)The person who has been ordered under Sub-Section (4) to pay compensation may appeal from the order, in so far as it relates to the payment of compensation, to the High Court.
In the present case at hand, the court has ordered compensation of Rs. 2,500 which is exceeding the limit of one thousand rupees as mentioned in sub-section (4) of section 237. So, it is open to C to challenge the said order of the session court by way of appeal to the High Court as the questions relate to the payment of excess compensation, in violation of the provision of section 237 of the code.
