1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 230 OF 1997 Rohidas s/o Rekhaji Chavan, Aged Major, Occ. Head Constable, Bakkal No. 513, Police Station Phulambri, District Aurangabad Petitioner V E R S U S 1. Ushabai w/o Premsing Bainade, Aged 19 years, R/o Phulambri, District Aurangabad. 2. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. N.L. Chavan, Advocate for the petitioner None present for the respondent No.1 Mr.S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 23rd April, 1997, in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1997. The facts leading to this litigation are quite peculiar and can be stated as under : 2. The petitioner is a Police officer. At the relevant time, he was attached to Phulambri Police Station. One Kondibaji of Phulambri filed a complaint in writing to the police station that the dead foetus was found in cow-dung in the village. Offence under Section 318 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against an unknown person. The applicant conducted the investigation, and during his investigation, he learnt that the original accused Ushabai had aborted a child on or about the same day. He drew a conclusion that it was Ushabai who had committed the offence. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that the evidence did not connect the accused 2 Ushabai with the foetus that was found in the cow-dung. He gave a finding that it was the applicant who made serious error in the investigation and thereby made accused Ushabai to face a serious criminal case. He, therefore, while acquitting Ushabai, directed the applicant under Section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure to pay Rs. 418/- as compensation to the original accused Ushabai. Despite the applicant’s revision before the revisional Court, the applicant could not get respite. The learned Judge of the revisional Court confirmed the impugned order awarding compensation. Both the Courts below did not observe that the applicant purposely implicated original accused Ushabai in this case. 3. The question that arises for my consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether Investigating Officer, who commits an error in investigation, can be asked to pay compensation to accused under Section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 250 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as under : 250. Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause. (1) If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a Police Officer or to 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 discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal , if the person upon whose complaint or information or 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. (2) The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if he is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation, may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order that compensation to such amount, not exceeding the amount of fine he is empowered to impose, as he may determine, be paid by such complainant or informant to the accused or to each or any of them. (3) The Magistrate may, by the order directing payment of the compensation under sub-section (2), further order that, in default of 3 payment, the person ordered to pay such compensation shall under go simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days. (4) When any person is imprisoned under sub-section (3), the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the lndiail Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall, so far as may be, apply. (5) No person who has been directed to pay compensation under this section shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the complaint made or information given by him: Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be taken in to account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter. (6) A complainant or informant who has been ordered under sub- section (2) by a Magistrate of the second class to pay compensation exceeding one hundred rupees, may appeal from the order, as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial had by such Magistrate. (7) When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under sub-section (6), the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided; and where such order is made in a case which is not so subject to appeal the compensation shall not be paid before the expiration of one month from the date of theorder. (8) The provisions of this section apply to summons-cases as well as to warrant cases. On the face of it, this provision does not cover a case of erroneous investigation. It neither covers mischievous and malicious investigation. A similar view is expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Uttam Manulal Kale v. The State of Maharashtra (1999 (5) Bom. C. R. 341). In view of above, Writ Petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp/230/97/20910 4