Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 224 (UTT)

R. P. Purohit v. State of Uttaranchal

2005-06-30

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2005
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the applicants/revisionists and perused the record. 2. According to the prosecution case, the accused were challenged under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act and after recording the evidence, the Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that prosecution was able to prove the guilt against the accused persons. After recording the acquittal of the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the police officials, who were involved in the recovery and investigation, which was recovered from his personal search that shall be recovered from their pay as well as from G.P.F. It was further observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accused were in Jail for eight months for which Rs. 1 lac each will be paid by the police officials within a period of one month to the accused as a compensation. Thereafter, the police department will recover such amount from the erring police personnel from their pay or G.P.F. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has filed present revision petition feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to the recovery of Rs. 1 lac against the revisionists. 4. By means of this revision, the revisionists have prayed that the order and judgement of the learned Trial Court dated 30-06-2001 awarding compensation against the revisionists may be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as for the State. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the court below has not complied with the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary to the extent by which rupees one lac has been awarded against the revisionists. It was further contended that the compensation amount is very excessive. It was further contended on behalf of the revisionists that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have not disclosed that the revisionists had taken his watch and money. It was further contended that the learned court below has illegally held that statement given by the accused that the revisionists had forcibly taken money and watch of the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the State contended that the State has not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. It was further contended that the learned court below has illegally held that statement given by the accused that the revisionists had forcibly taken money and watch of the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the State contended that the State has not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if in any case which is pending for trial before. the .court, the court while acquitting the accused, if, is of the opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the court may, by its order of discharge or acquittal call upon the complainant for the person, who has given the information to show cause as to why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused. Thereafter, if the person concerned appears before the court and the court is of the view that no reasonable ground for making the accusation, he may for the reasons to be recorded may make an order that the compensation to such amount may be awarded by the informant or the complainant to the accused. 9. In the Instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions of Section 250 Cr.P.C. and he has not given any notice to the complainant or the informant and has proceeded in awarding compensation ex parte without hearing the revisionists. The direction was issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the State/police department to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the revisionists giving liberty to the State to realize or to recover the whole of such compensation from erring police officials. In my view, the police officials have not been given the notice and thereafter no reasons have been recorded as stipulated under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C. Without recording the reasons and directing the police department to pay Rs. 1 lac as compensation to the accused caused a great prejudice to the State. There was no ground to come to this conclusion at this initial stage. 1 lac as compensation to the accused caused a great prejudice to the State. There was no ground to come to this conclusion at this initial stage. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also omitted to take note of the fact that the action taken under the act in good faith is protected under Section 69 of the N.D.P.S. Act and as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed manifest error of law. I am fortified in taking the above view by the pronouncement of Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Babu Chakraborty reported in AIR SC 2004. Page 4324 and Gauri Shankar Vs. Atma Ram and others, reported in ACC 2000 (41) Page 386. 10. I am of the opinion that no compensation can be awarded to the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case and as such the revision petition Is liable to be allowed in part and the order impugned is liable to be seta side to the extent of paying Rs. 1 lac. 11. Both the revisions are allowed in part. The impugned order dated 3006-2001 regarding payment of Rs. 1 lac each by the revisionists is quashed. 12. Let the lower court's record be sent back to the trial court along with a copy of this judgement.