JUDGMENT Bennett, J. - The sole question which is pressed in this revision application is whether an order awarding compensation u/s 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be passed by a Magistrate upon a complaint which alleges in addition to an offence triable by a Magistrate an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. 2. In the case under consideration the complaint was made under Sections 366 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The record of the proceedings is not before me, but I am informed that the Magistrate took proceedings on the assumption that there was a possibility of a commitment to Sessions. After making some inquiry he found that the complaint was not justified, and he issued notice to the complainant to show cause why compensation should not be awarded u/s 250 in respect of the complaint made u/s 498. It is not disputed that the notice issued to the complainant related solely to this section. 3. The Sessions Judge, relaying on a Lahore ruling, AIR 1930 482 (Lahore) held that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate u/s 250, For the other view I have been referred to the Allahabad case of Harihar Dat Vs. Maksud Ali and Others In that case a learned single Judge held that the complaint having been enquired into under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate was not competent to pass an order u/s 250. He would only be competent to pass such an order in proceedings under Chapter XX of the Code which relates solely to summons cases. 4. With regard to this latter view with all due respect I may point out that although Section 250 is to be found in Chapter XX, dealing with the trial of summons cases, there is a special heading to the section "Frivolous accusations in summons and warrant cases". 5. There is therefore, it would seem, no reason to restrict the power of the Magistrate u/s 250 to summons cases. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has not placed much reliance upon the view taken in the Allahabad case that compensation can be awarded only in summons cases. 5. There is therefore, it would seem, no reason to restrict the power of the Magistrate u/s 250 to summons cases. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has not placed much reliance upon the view taken in the Allahabad case that compensation can be awarded only in summons cases. He has, however relied upon the case to support his contention that no order u/s 250 can be passed where the complaint alleges an offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session; as well as an offence which is triable by a Magistrate. He points out that in such cases proceedings would be taken under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is no doubt true but, learned Counsel concedes that even though proceedings have been taken under Chapter XVIII, it is nevertheless open to the Magistrate, while holding that there is no case for commitment to Sessions on the charge exclusively triable by the Court of Session, to convict the accused on that charge which is triable by him as a Magistrate. It seems to me that if this is conceded there is little force in the contention that no order for compensation can be passed where proceedings are taken by the Magistrate initially under Chapter XVIII and not under Chapter XX or XXI. 7. In the Lahore case the conclusions arrived at by the Bench were-- (1) that Section 250 is not applicable to offences triable by a Court of Session; (2) that where a complainant brings joint accusations of both class of offences and the Magistrate finds both to be false he is competent to award compensation only in respect of offences triable by a Magistrate; and (3) that if compensation is awarded for both kinds of offences and it is not possible to divide the amount so awarded between the two the order is bad and must be set aside. 8. The Bench set aside the order as the Magistrate had not distinguished between the offences alleged. It is conceded in the present case that the Magistrate has made a distinction and this is clearly borne out by the fact that he issued notice to the complainant to show cause why compensation should not be awarded in respect of the complaint brought by him u/s 498. It is conceded in the present case that the Magistrate has made a distinction and this is clearly borne out by the fact that he issued notice to the complainant to show cause why compensation should not be awarded in respect of the complaint brought by him u/s 498. It is clear, herefore, that on the ruling of the Lahore High Court the orderfor compensation was justified in the present case. 9. I have carefully considered both these rulings and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and I do not think that there is any reason to take a view different from that taken by the Lahore High Court. 10. It may be pointed out that on the other view a complainant who brings a false accusation before a Magistrate has merely to tack on to the charge triable by the Magistrate a charge triable exclusively by a Court of Session in order to render himself immune to action against him u/s 250. and apart from this there seems to be no reason why a Magistrate should not have the power to award compensation in respect of that part of the complaint which he has full power to deal with. 11. I accordingly dismiss the application.