JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against the order of the Court below directing the Petitioner to pay compensation of, Rs. 5/- to each of the 8 accused persons, in default to undergo S.I. for 7 days. 2. On the information lodged by the Petitioner G.R. Case No. 36 70, for offences under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, was instituted against 8 accused persons, opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 in the revision. The Court below acquitted the accused persons and in the same order of acquittal it also passed the aforesaid impugned order, purporting to act u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Mr, Murty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Court below acted illegally in passing the aforesaid order in the judgment of acquittal itself, as along with that order the Magistrate could have passed only the order to show cause why the informant or the complainant should not pay compensation to the accused, and he could not have passed the final order directing payment of compensation by the same order. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the order calling upon the complainant or the informant to show cause is to be passed along with the order of discharge or acquittal, and after affording the said opportunity if the Magistrate is satisfied that the accusation made by the complainant or the informant was false and either frivolous or vexatious, he may, for reasons to be recorded, direct compensation to be paid by the complainant or the informant as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 250. The stage for passing an order under Sub-section (2) arises only after the Magistrate records an order of discharge or acquittal and therein asks the informant to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. So long that is not done he cannot proceed to take action under Sub-section (2). Moreover, if cause is shown it is the bounden duty of the Magistrate to consider the same as provided u/s 250(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. Reading Sub-section (1) and (2) together it is clear that once cause is shown the Magistrate has to re-examine the matter afresh in the light of the cause shown to see if all the elements necessary for taking final action under Sub-section (2) are satisfied or not. Reading Sub-section (1) and (2) together it is clear that once cause is shown the Magistrate has to re-examine the matter afresh in the light of the cause shown to see if all the elements necessary for taking final action under Sub-section (2) are satisfied or not. He is bound under the provisions of Sub-section (2) to record an independent finding in the perspective of the cause shown as to whether the accusation brought by the complainant or the informant was false and either frivolous or vexatious. This finding must be irrespective of what he had held earlier in the order of discharge or judgment of acquittal. So the actual order for the payment of compensation can properly be passed by a subsequent order. Passing of an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 250 should not be a matter of course, and the express provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) should not be considered as idle for motilities . 4. In the present case, the Magistrate by the Order of acquittal itself has directed payment of compensation by the informant to the accused persons. No doubt, in the impugned judgment it is stated that opportunity to show cause was given to the complainant against the aforesaid order and the impugned order was passed after considering the cause shown by the informant. I find from the judgment that the Magistrate at first recorded an order of acquittal and thereafter passed the aforesaid order u/s 250(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, of course all these in the same judgment of acquittal. As the Magistrate afforded an opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause against the aforesaid order and the said order was passed after hearing the Petitioner?s advocate I will not go to the extent of holding that the said order is an illegal one only because it was passed along with the judgment of acquittal. But on a perusal of the impugned order I find that the Magistrate has not bestowed proper consideration to the cause shown and has not considered and dealt with the matter in the correct perspective. I am, on going through the order, left with the impression that the Magistrate had made up his mind before actually calling upon the informant to show cause, and that was done only as a matter of course. I am, on going through the order, left with the impression that the Magistrate had made up his mind before actually calling upon the informant to show cause, and that was done only as a matter of course. Apart from the fact that the Magistrate did not proceed in the matter in strict accordance with law, he has also not taken pains to consider the matter afresh to arrive at an independent finding in the context and perspective of the elements necessary for passing an order u/s 250(2) Code of Criminal Procedure irrespective of what he found in the judgment of acquittal. 5. The informant lodged information at the police station and police, after investigation, instituted the case against the accused persons. It is established on the evidence on record that the informant had sustained some injuries in the incident. No doubt, the informant in his deposition before the Court has given an exaggerated picture of the incident, but from the documents on record (specially Exts. A, B and C) it is quite evident that an incident of assault took place in between the informant and the accused, as a result of which the informant and the accused persons sustained some injuries. It also appears from the evidence and materials on record that the accused persons had instituted a counter case against the complainant relating to the same incident. Accordingly, it cannot at all be said that there was no occurrence at all and the information lodged was absolutely false and either frivolous or vexatious. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and certain important features of the evidence on record I am satisfied that the elements necessary for passing an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure are not present in this case, and the impugned order directing the informant to pay compensation to the accused persons was not called for in this case. On the aforesaid considerations the impugned order directing payment of compensation by the Petitioner to the accused persons is hereby set aside.