Ramlal Pandit v. R., Crim. App. 71-A-68, 29/5/68, Platt J.

Ramlal Pandit v. R., Crim. App. 71-A-68, 29/5/68, Platt J.

Appellant reported to the police that he had been assaulted, and the police instituted a prosecution, but the District Court held that the accused had no case to answer. The magistrate went on to order appellant to pay the accused compensation at Shs. 60/- per day for seven days, under Crim. Proc. Code s. 175, which gives the court power to order the “complainant” to pay compensation to the accused if the charge has been frivolous or vexatious.

            Held: (1) Appellant had reported the matter to the police and was the main witness for the prosecution, but was not he “complainant” within the meaning of this section; this refers to the police officer or private person who actually institutes the prosecution. [Citing R. v. Kassameli Jaffer and others, 1 T.L.R. 176]. (2) There seems to be no reason why compensation cannot be ordered even against the Republic, in the appropriate circumstances, under this section. (3) However, this was no a frivolous or vexatious charge; it would not have been surprising is the magistrate had held that there was at least a prima facie case to answer. Appeal allowed, order for compensation set aside.