JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Petitioner was the complainant in Complaint Case No. ICC 113 of 1981. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, held an enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") and having found prima facie case against the apposite parties under sections 354/323, Indian Penal Code, took cognisance of the said offences and issued process to the opposite parties for their appearance. Thereafter the opposite parties entered appearance in the case and faced their trial. Ultimately by order dated 3-12-1983 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, acquitted the accused persons under section 255(1) of the Code. In the order of acquittal, the learned Magistrate came to hold that the allegations made by the complainant against the accused person were false and frivolous and further the complainant had no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them and, therefore, he directed the complainant to show cause under section 250 of the Code as to why she should not pay compensation to each of the five accused persons. The complainant was present in Court when the order of acquittal was passed on 3-12-1983 and when she wanted time to tile written show cause, the learned Magistrate directed her to file the show cause by 5-12-1983. On 5-12-1983, the complainant filed a petition for time to file show cause, but the learned Magistrate rejected her prayer on the ground that two days' time that will granted on 3-12-1983 was sufficient and, therefore, no further time should granted. Thereupon, the impugned order was passed directing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- as compensation to each of the five accused person, in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of ten days. 2. Mr. Panda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in impugning the order of the learned Magistrate dated 5-12-1983 contends that the refusal of the learned Magistrate to grant time on 5-12-1983 is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the complainant to show cause and in that view of the matter, the final order of the Magistrate is wholly unjustified. 2. Mr. Panda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in impugning the order of the learned Magistrate dated 5-12-1983 contends that the refusal of the learned Magistrate to grant time on 5-12-1983 is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the complainant to show cause and in that view of the matter, the final order of the Magistrate is wholly unjustified. The learned counsel further urges that section 250 of the Code requires an objective test to be satisfied by the learned Magistrate, namely the total absence of any reasonable ground for the accusation in question which, in most cases, would be the same thing as actual knowledge of the falsity of the accusation. The learned Magistrate has mechanically used the language of section 250(1) of the Code without there being any objective data before him and in that view of the matter, the order dated 3-12-1983 is also bad in law. Mr. Misra appearing for the opposite parties-accused persons contends that the pre-conditions of section 250 of the Code having been satisfied, the Magistrate was well within his jurisdiction to direct payment of compensation by the complainant and in that view of the matter, the order of the Magistrate is unassailable. 3. Section 250 of the Code confers power on the Magistrate to award compensation against the informant or complainant while discharging or acquitting the accused persons so that frivolous complaints could be discouraged. It is only when a complainant who brings a false complaint knowing it to be false needs to be punished. It is true that it is difficult to prove the lack of knowledge on the complainant's part and, therefore, the Legislature has put the test to be "total absence of any reasonable ground for the case". This formation of opinion by the learned Magistrate under sub-section (1) of section 250 of the Code is an objective one and mere mechanical reproduction of the language of section 250(1) would not satisfy the requirements of the said provision. That apart, the Magistrate is bound to ask the informant or complainant to show cause as to why he should not pay compensation. That apart, the Magistrate is bound to ask the informant or complainant to show cause as to why he should not pay compensation. There is no indication in the provision as to how much time should the Magistrate give to the complainant or informant, but it must be a reasonable time so that the complainant would be in a position to go through the judgment of acquittal and then put forth his cause. As it appears, in the present case, the judgment was delivered on 3-12-1983 and the Magistrate required the complainant who was present in Court to show cause forthwith. On complainant's asking for time, the Magistrate granted time till 5.12.1983. By this time it was not possible for the complainant even to get a copy of the order of acquittal. When on 5-12-1983, the complainant wanted time, the Magistrate refused the same. In my opinion, the Magistrate did not act properly in refusing to adjourn the matter and grant some reasonable time to the complainant to file her show cause on 5-12-1983. Sub-section (2) of section 250 requires that the Magistrate shall make an order that compensation shall be paid by the complainant for reasons to be recorded. The impugned order dated 5-12-1983 does not indicate any reason whatsoever as to why the Magistrate should direct the complainant to pay compensation of Rs. 100/-. In the view of the matter, the order dated 5-12-1983 cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, therefore, I would set aside the orders of the Magistrate dated 3-12-1983 and 5-12-1983 initiating a proceeding under section 250(1) and passing final order under section 250(2) of the Code. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed