1. The revision application has been filed by the applicant challenging the judgment passed by the Civil Judge & F.C.M. Matli in Case No.3 of 1988 to the extent of ordering the present applicant to pay the compensation of Rs 1%nnn in each accused.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the purpose of this revision application are that the present applicant who is A.S.I. At the Police Station Tando Ghulam Ali had lodged the F.I.R. Under section 5(A) of the Gambling Act being Crime No. 44/88 to the effect that on 4-5-1988 the complainant (present applicant) along with police party had left the police station vide Entry No.19 for the purpose of patrolling and when they reached the bus stand of Haji Sawan, they received spy information on which they proceeded towards the forest where they arrested -the three accused who were engaged in gambling with a dice. Certain recoveries of cash etc. Has been made from the accused and they were challaned before the above Court under section 5(i) of the West Pakistan Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1961.
3. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence and ultimately relying on certain contradictions in the evidence of witnesses acquitted the accused under section 245(i), Cr.P.C. Giving them benefit of doubt by judgment passed on 30-5-1991. By passing the said judgment the trial Court directed the complainant (present applicant) to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,000 to each ,accused which he was required to deposit in Court within 15 days.
4. I have heard Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, Assistant Advocate-Genaral.
5. Mr. Allah Bachayo Soornro, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the provisions of section 250, Cr.P.C. And has urged that the present order to the extent of imposing a penalty of payment of compensation by the present applicant is contrary to the provisions of section 250, Cr.P.C. Reads as under:-- "250. False frivolous accusations.-- (1) If in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate, by whom. The case is heard acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that the accusation against them or any of them was false and either frivolous or vexatious, the Magistrate may by his order of acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one, or if such person is not present direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid."
6. The above provisions show that a Magistrate can impose a penalty of compensation on the.
7. Person on whose complaint or information the accusation is made in case Magistrate is of the opinion that such accusation is false, frivolous or vexatious. The second requirement of the above provision is that in such cases the Magistrate is to call upon such complainant to show cause why he should not pay such compensation. In the present case it is observed that there is nothing on the record to show if the present applicant was called upon by the Magistrate to show cause as contemplated in section 250(l), Cr.P.C. It may further be observed that the impugned judgment shows that the acquittal was ordered giving benefit of doubt to the accused and there is no clear finding of the Magistrate that the complaint was false, frivolous or vexatious. In these circumstances I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the present applicant to pay the compensation does not fulfil the requirements of section 250, Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, I set aside the A impugned judgment to the extent it affects the present applicant. The revision application is consequently allowed.
9. N.H.Q./M-1569/K