P L D 1969 Lahore 648 (PLP)

The petitioner in this case was directed by Mr. Salim Abba Jilani, Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Jauharabad, to pay a sum of Rs. 100 under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to Syed Ghulam Haider Shah, Advocate, respondent No. 2 by his order dated 22nd of August 1962, on the ground that the petitioner had filed a false complaint under sections 352/504 of the Pakistan Penal Code against the respondent. A show. cause notice was issued and the petitioner did appear in response to that. He gave a number of reasons against the payment of compensation and also made a request for summoning evidence. The learned Magistrate did not accede to his request for summoning evidence but dealt with all the other pleas raised by the petitioner, and awarded a compensation of Rs. 100 as stated above. An appeal was taken to the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, which was dismissed on 16th of April 1963, on the ground that it was time‑barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following two points :‑ (i) that the refusal of the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioner to adduce evidence in reply to the show‑cause notice was illegal, and ; (ii) that the learned Magistrate after signing the judgment of acquittal in the main case on 31st of July 1952, had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction, in law, to proceed with the matter of the award of compensation after that date.

3. I have examined the relevant provisions of law with the assistance of the learned counsel "or the petitioner and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, the learned counsel appearing for the State. The only requirement of law is that a show‑cause notice be issued to the petitioner. That was done. Th. learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate had to confine himself to the contents of the complaint and the evidence adduced before him in coming to the conclusion that the complaint was false. After this decision, the production of any evidence would leave been quite extraneous to the matter before the learned Magistrate. The purpose of show‑cause notice is to afford a person an opportunity to know the case against him and to give its answer. This requirement of law was complied with. In my view, the learned Magistrate was right in refusing the request for summoning further evidence.

4. In support of the second contention the learned counsel has produced a judgment of the Lahore High Court entitled Karam Baksh alias Karam Din v. Muhammad Saeed alias Buta (62 I C 415). It was held in this case that the award of compensation after signing a judgment of discharge or acquittal is illegal. The reason given for this finding is that the learned Magistrate became functus officio and the order of award of compensation subsequent to the pronouncement of judgment, was, therefore, without jurisdiction. It is to be remembered that the case relied upon by the learned counsel was decided on 31st of May 1921, when section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code was in its old form and bad not been amended by Act XVIII of 1923. The judicial interpretation of the provisions of the unamended section 250 was that the award of compensation had to be made at the time when the Court passed an order of acquittal or discharge, although the Allahabad High Court in Ghurbin Keeri v. Khalil Khan and others (I L R 36 All, 132) has held that proceedings taken subsequent to the passing of an order of acquittal, for award of compensation, were not illegal and the irregularity was curable under section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case relied upon by the learned counsel is, therefore, not applicable to the provisions of section 250, as they exist at present.

5. The procedure laid down by section 250, Criminal Procedure Code is quite distinct from the procedure for discharging or acquitting an accused. The language of the section itself contemplates separate proceedings and the judgment to be delivered in the main case cannot be kept in abeyance till the determination of the amount of compensation or discharge of notice, as the case may be. 7 he Magistrate is required to come to a finding at the time of the delivery of the judgment in the original case that the complaint or information was false or frivolous or vexatious, and if he chooses, he may issue a show-cause notice to the informant. The rest of the proceedings have to be separate.

5. A similar matter came before the Lahore High Court in Achhru Mal v. Emperor (A I R 1926 Lah. 298). In this case, as in the present case, the learned Magistrate bad issued a show‑cause notice while deciding the complaint, but had awarded compensation after the issue of a show‑cause notice. The learned Single Judge, who decided this case observed as follows:‑ "The law has now been amended and by the present sec tion 250 and it is only the order calling upon the complainant to show cause why he should not pay compensation which has to be contained in the order of discharge. The order for payment of compensation was necessarily a subsequent order. The Magistrate followed the correct procedure, and I decline to interfere." I respectfully agree with the above observations and repel the second objection of the learned counsel.

6. As a result of the above discussion, I find no force in this revision petition which is, hereby, dismissed. The order of the trial Court is maintained. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.