' This revision petition has been preferred by Mualim Shah against Jan Muhammad after tfaving been aggrieved of the orders, dated 28-9-1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mardan and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mardan, dated 27-10-1997.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 4-1-1996, Mualim Shah petitioner brought complaint under section 447/448/506/34, P.P.C. Against Jan Muhammad and his son Ali Ahmad before the Judicial Magistrate, Mardan alleging therein that he was the owner of a garden in Mauza Quaid Abad, over which he had constructed a room for Chowkidar, that he had a dispute over the said property with the respondents which was pending in the Civil Court. On 3-1-1996 the two respondents had locked the room in the said garden and had also hurled threats and abuses on the Chowkidar. He went to the police station for report but upon refusal of the same he made the aforesaid complaint. The Magistrate after having received the complaint marked the same to the local police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the complaint was put in Court.
Accused were charged and after recording some evidence they were acquitted as a case of no evidence, vide order, dated 16-7-1996. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate assuming jurisdiction under section 250, Cr.P.C. Passed the impugned order on 28-9-1996, that the petitioner namely, Mualim Shah had brought a false/frivolous and vexatious complaint against Jan Muhammad, therefore, he was served with a notice under section 250, Cr.P.C. Reply to. The notice was submitted by the petitioner. The observation of the learned Magistrate was that in the evidence of the complainant there is no mention that Jan Muhammad had linked himself with the crime, therefore, he was obliged to observe that the petitioner shall compensate Jan Muhammad for his physical and mental anguish by paying him a sum of Rs,4,000, which if no paid, be recovered from Mualim Shah according to law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner (Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel) contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in respect of penalising the petitioner under section 250, Cr.P.C. Is inoperative and against the procedure inasmuch as the learned Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind in respect of imposition of compensation under section 250, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has also not recorded the reasons for passing the said order. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1937 Oudh p.269, wherein it was held that it was the duty of the Magistrate ordering compensation to . Record his reasons for passing such order.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had turned down the appeal of the petitioner mainly on the ground of limitation, as according to him the appeal filed by the petitioner before him was time-barred. In reply to the aforesaid objection the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that criminal revision filed after the expiry of period of limitation cannot be turned down simply on the ground of delay. He also submitted that the principles of limitation are not applicable when an order is ambiguous in the eye of law. He relied on 1986 SCMR p.963, PLD 1974 Lah. p.434 and AIR 1934 Lah. p.264.
' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents (Mr. Ghulam Ali) supported the orders of the two Courts below by reiterating that the learned Magistrate having considered this aspect of the case had come to the conclusion that the petitioner has brought a false and frivolous complaint against the respondent Jan Muhammad and after having acquitted him he was within his competence to order compensation of Rs,4,000 from the petitioner. Besides he also objected to the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge after the expiry of period of limitation. The learned State Counsel (Mr. Qasim Jan) supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the complaint brought by the petitioner before the trial Court was on the basis of an information furnished to him by his Chowkidar. He has nowhere claimed to have witnessed the occurrence himself. The basis of this fact entitled the respondent to the acquittal from the charges brought against him by the complainant, vide the detailed order passed by the learned Magistrate on 16- 10-1996. Since the trial Court has exonerated the accuaed of the charges brought against him by the present petitioner in hie complaint, therefore, in view of the same the order of compensation was not desired 1111 no intention in respect of a frivolous charge of the petitioner is forthcoming on the record, With these observations and the case-law discussed 1 am of the view that the impugned order of the Magistrate, dated 28-9-1996 has no merit and the same is set aside. The petition is accepted.