Judgment : 1. This is a curious case. The de facto complainant is PW.1. She filed a case against as many as seven accused alleging that they attacked her and others on 07.07.2002 and caused simple injuries. The case was taken on file as a private complaint. The complainant examined three witnesses on her behalf. After considering the evidence of the complainant and her other witnesses, the learned Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Narsapur dismissed the private complaint. In the process, the learned trial Judge directed the complainant (PW.1) to pay compensation to A.1 and A.3 to A.7 at Rs.300/- each under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for lodging a false complaint. Assailing the same, the present revision is laid. Indeed, the revision questions the acquittal. The revision also questions the order of the learned trial Judge awarding compensation in favour of A.1, A.3 to A.7 payable by PW.1. 2. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/de facto complainant submitted that he is confining the claim to imposition of penalty upon the complainant at Rs.300/- per accused (barring for A.2) imposed u/s.250 Cr.P.C. He inter alia contended that the trial Judge did not follow the procedure contemplated by Sec.250 Cr.P.C. and that there were no circumstances to impose the fine against the complainant by way of compensation to the accused. Sec.250 Cr.P.C. ordains that compensation can be awarded in favour of the accused against the complainant/de facto complainant in the event it is found by the Court that the accusation was without reasonable cause. In such an event, a show cause notice should be issued to the complainant and after hearing him, orders awarding compensation can be passed. Admittedly, such a notice was not issued in this case against PW.1. The trial Court considered that the accusation was false and was patently false and went on to impose compensation u/s.250 Cr.P.C. I shall examine the circumstances in which the trial Court imposed compensation u/s.250 Cr.P.C. a little later. Suffice it to notice at this stage that show cause notice was not issued to PW.1 before compensation was awarded in favour of the accused as payable by PW.1. Suffice it to notice at this stage that show cause notice was not issued to PW.1 before compensation was awarded in favour of the accused as payable by PW.1. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that the trial Court did not follow the procedure ordained by Sec.250 Cr.P.C. and that the award of compensation as payable by PW.1, therefore, is not sustainable. 3. However, it becomes necessary to go into the merits of the case for the reason that if the order of the trial Court is set aside on the ground of not following the procedure, it would have been more appropriate to remit the case to the trial Court to follow the procedure. Hence, it becomes necessary to verify the circumstances in which the trial Court ordered compensation. 4. There were two cases, which are a case and its counter. The revision arises from C.C.No.57 of 2002. C.C.No.58 of 2002 on the file of the same Court is a case against PW.1 and PW.3 and the daughters of PW.1 which case was laid by A.1 herein. Thus, there were allegations and counter allegations by the accused and PW.1 against each other. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pointed out that C.C.No.58 of 2002 also has ended in acquittal. However, whether C.C.No.57 of 2002 ended in acquittal or otherwise has no relevance for the disposal of the present case. 5. In the present case, it would appear that Ex.P.1 complaint shows that it was typed on 08.06.2002. The offence in the present case allegedly occurred on 07.07.2002. The learned trial Judge considered that the complaint was stage managed as there could not have been a complaint on 08.06.2002 about an incident that was going to occur about a month later on 07.07.2002. The trial Court, therefore, considered that it was just and reasonable to award compensation against PW.1 in favour of the accused. 6. The learned counsel for PW.1, however, pointed out that the date as shown in Ex.P.1 as 08.06.2002 was a typographical mistake and that the complaint in fact was typed on 08.07.2002. In any event, it is a complaint in respect of a case and counter. 6. The learned counsel for PW.1, however, pointed out that the date as shown in Ex.P.1 as 08.06.2002 was a typographical mistake and that the complaint in fact was typed on 08.07.2002. In any event, it is a complaint in respect of a case and counter. It is not as though whenever a complaint is disbelieved and an accused is acquitted, it should automatically follow with compensation u/s.250 Cr.P.C. To award compensation u/s.250 Cr.P.C., there should be special circumstances, such as the complaint being patently false and manifestly motivated. In the present case, such circumstances have not been made out. The only circumstances in the case viz., the discrepancy between the date of offence and the date of complaint have been explained by the learned counsel for PW.1. I, therefore, consider that this is a fit case where PW.1 does not attract compensation by invoking u/s.250 Cr.P.C. 7. I am not going into the merits of the acquittal as the learned counsel for PW.1 specifically submitted that he has been contesting the case with reference to the award of compensation u/s.250 Cr.P.C. only. 8. For the reasons set out, the award of compensation against PW.1 by the trial Court is unjustified and is accordingly set aside. 9. The revision is allowed accordingly.