What is Section 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

According to Section 358, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court has been empowered to order one party to compensate the other party, whose arrest by the police is wrongfully done by him.

This section says: 358 Compensation to persons who have been arrested without basis –

(1) Whenever any person causes any other person to be arrested by a police officer, if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was no sufficient ground for causing such arrest, that Magistrate may award that such amount, not exceeding one thousand rupees, shall be paid by the person making the arrest to the person so arrested for the loss and expenditure of his time in this behalf, as the Magistrate may think fit.

(2) In such cases, if more than one person is arrested, the Magistrate may in the same manner award for each of them such compensation, not exceeding one thousand rupees, as such Magistrate may think fit.

(3) All compensation awarded under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine and, if it cannot be so recovered, to the person by whom it is payable, for such period not exceeding thirty days. shall be sentenced to simple imprisonment, as the Magistrate may direct, unless such sum is paid earlier.

Section 358(1) provides that compensation may be caused by a Magistrate to a person who was arrested without grounds. The following 4 things are to be noted for this entire section:-

(a) A person has got another person arrested through a police officer

(b) The Magistrate by whom the case was being heard must be of the opinion that there was no ground for the arrest

(c) Every person arrested without any basis shall be liable to a maximum of one thousand rupees compensation for the loss and expense of his time on behalf of the person making the arrest.

(d) The compensation shall be recovered by way of fine and if the fine cannot be recovered, the person on whose behalf the fine is payable shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a maximum period of 30 days.

An active role of a person is necessary in getting arrested

Section 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires that there should be some direct proximity between the informant or the complainant and the arrest.

In Pramod Kumar Padhi v. Golokha @ Golla Karna et al. 1986 OLR 89 it was clarified that in cases where, on receipt of a notice about the commission of a cognizable offence, a police officer investigates the matter and Then decides about the future course of action and if he arrests an accused, it cannot be said that the informant/complainant can be ordered to pay compensation under section 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

In other words, to attract the provisions of section 358 of the Code, if the information of the offense is merely being sent to the police station by the informant or the complainant, it is not satisfactory that such person should be compensated. be compelled to give and that too only because the police after their investigation arrested the accused. Obviously, there is more to be found than simply reporting the crime.

Since once a crime is reported, the police, in its discretion and proceeds with its initiative and arrests the accused only on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, therefore, every The person who informed the crime in the case cannot be said to be responsible for the arrest of the accused.

In order to attract section 358 of the Code in relation to the person reporting the offense or the complainant, there must be something more on record to show that that person caused the arrest of the accused without sufficient ground.

In other words, whether the Informant or the Complainant is to be compelled to pay compensation under section 358, the test should be such that it is clear that the arrest of the accused cannot be carried out without the coercive efforts of the complainant/complainant. could.

In Mallappa v Veerabasappa et al. 1977 Cri LJ 1856, the High Court of Karnataka held that the phrase “appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard” in section 358 also made it clear that Section 358(1) of the Code There must exist some sufficient ground to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that it is clear that the person who informed the offense or the complainant caused the arrest of the accused and that sufficient ground for such arrest did not exist, and Only then does the matter of compensation under section 358 come into existence.

It is very important to note that if the Magistrate has recorded the acquittal of an accused, it does not in itself be a sufficient ground for obtaining/getting compensation under section 358 of the Code.

Further, neither can the Magistrate come to the conclusion that since the accused are being acquitted, there was no sufficient ground for the arrest to be made to compel the informant/complainant to pay compensation.

As we have learned, in order to compel the Informant/Complainant to pay compensation u/s 358 of the Code, there must be something else on record to show that the Informant/Complainant caused the arrest of the accused without sufficient ground.

Should the Informant/Complainant be expected to show cause? Mandatory?

There is no doubt that as per the words used in Section 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no provision to issue a show-cause notice to the other party (Informant/Complainant) before recovering compensation, but the same Another provision contained in the Code, i.e. section 250, has been provided in this regard.

Indeed, according to section 250, when the Magistrate is of the opinion that no reasonable ground existed for making the charge in any case, the Magistrate shall require the person on whose complaint or information the case was instituted to state why he should not pay compensation to such accused (requiring cause to be shown).

Such requirement is made when the Magistrate, by whom the case was being heard, has acquitted or acquitted the accused or any of them, and is of the opinion that there is no reason to impeach him or any of them. There was no proper reason.

Further, as observed in the case of Shah Chandulal Gokaldas et al. vs. Patel Baldevbhai Ranchoddas et al. (1979) GLR 821, the natural consequence of the order of payment of compensation (paying compensation or the punishment of simple imprisonment) is to be looked at. and having regard to whether the Magistrate has to come to a conclusion as to whether sufficient ground existed for such arrest, the principles of natural justice must be kept in view and any order The Informant/Complainant should be heard before giving.

In order to give effect to the provisions of the law, it is necessary that an opportunity of showing cause should be given so that the opposite party tries to satisfy the Magistrate that sufficient ground for the arrest did in fact exist.