( 60 )
CHIVAKANNIPILLAI v. CHUPPRAMANIAN t
P. C., Point Pedro, 2,210.
Crown costs—Maintenance—Ordinance No. 19 of 1889, 8. 3.
An applicant for an order of maintenance under seotion 3 ofOrdinance No. 19 of 1889 cannot be condemned in Crown costsunder chapter XIX. of the Criminal Procedure Code.
f j ’'HE facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment.
Wendt, for appellant.
Tirunavukarasu, for respondent.
3rd June, 1896. Bonseb, C.J.—
This is an appeal from part of an order made by Mr. Casio Chitty,Acting Police Magistrate of Point Pedro, ■who, in dismissing anapplication for maintenance made under Ordinance 19 of 1889,appended to it a direction that the appellant was to pay, by wayof Crown costs, a sum of Rs. 5. It is obvious that this order wasmade in mistake. The power given to a Magistrate by section 236of the Criminal Procedure Code, of making such an order, is to beexercised only in a case where there has been a complaint, whichis a technical term meaning a statement that a person has committedan offence. It is needless to say that an application under theMaintenance Ordinance is not a complaint. Again, Crown costscan only be given in a case triable under chapter XIX. of theCriminal Procedure Code. Cases under the Maintenance Ordinanceare not triable under that chapter. Certain chapters of the CriminalProcedure Code are expressly incorporated in the MaintenanceOrdinance, but chapter XIX. is not.
CHIVAKANNIPILLAI v. CHUPPRAMANIAN