WUEYEWARDENE S.P.J.—A.sHin Petris v. WimaUisena Perera.
1946Present : Cannon J.AVIS APP U If AMY, Appellant, and ROYD, Respondent,
403—M. C. Gampola, 10,467.
Criminal procedure—Compensation for groundlessly causing arrest—Scope ofCriminal Procedure Code, s. 253 C (1).
Where the Magistrate, purporting to act under section 253 c (1) ofthe Criminal Procedure Code, ordered the complainant to pay compen-sation to the accused who was acquitted—
Held, that section 253 c (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was notapplicable inasmuch as the accused had not been arrested hut sum-moned.
Held, further, that the Magistrate should have called upon the com-plainant to show cause.
15—-H 16792 (8/68)
CANNON J.—Avia Appuhamy v. Royd.
^ PPEAIi against an order of the Magistrate of Gampola.
S. W. Jayaauriya, for the appellant.
J.O. T. Weeraratne, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
May 20, 1946. Cannon J.—
In acquitting a person accused of causing hurt by stabbing the Magis-trate said : “ The accused in this case is really the in j Tired party. He hasbeen in hospital for 15 days. I have no doubt that the complainantinflicted the trivial knife injury on himself in order to forestall a chargeagainst him. I think this is essentially a case where the complainantshould pay compensation to the accused who is really the aggrieved party.I order the complainant to pay the accused Rs. 25 as compensation underthe provisions of section 253 c (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ”.
Section 253 c (1) of the Code enables the Magistrate to do this onlywhen the person who is ordered to pay compensation has caused a peaceofficer to arrest another person and there was no sufficient ground forcausing such arrest. In this case the acquitted person was not arrestedbut summoned, as the record clearly shows. Further in ordering thecomplainant to pay compensation the Magistrate did so without callingupon him to show cause (see 18 N. L. R. at page 213).
The complainant’s appeal on both or either of these grounds is notcontested by Crown Counsel and must be upheld. The appeal is thereforeallowed and the Magistrate’s order set aside.
AVIS APPUHAMY, Appellant, and ROYD , Respondent