JUDGMENT : By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to set aside the part of the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in connection with POCSO Case No. 94 of 2017 arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 384 of 2017 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- each to the innocent accused person of POCSO Case No. 94 of 2017 of the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi for illegal detention; in exercise of the power under Section 358 Cr.P.C. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant of POCSO Case No. 94 of 2017 arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 384 of 2017 lodged the said FIR alleging that the accused persons namely Upendra Oraon and Rajni Devi have hidden the minor daughter of the informant somewhere, in order to get her married with the other accused of the said case namely Rajendra Lohra and on the basis of the said written report submitted by the informant, police registered the case and after investigation of the case submitted final form on 19.09.2017 stating that the case was a mistake of fact. During the pendency of the investigation, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded and she denied the allegation. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi formed an opinion that the I.O. knew the case was lodged is a mistake of fact but even then, he produced the accused persons namely Upendra Oraon and Rajendra Lohra and they were remanded to jail custody by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi on 10.08.2017. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi did not pass any order on the bail petition and instead Upendra Oraon and Rajendra Lohra were remanded to jail custody on 10.08.2017, and they remained in jail till 18.11.2017; hence, compensation must be awarded as provided for under Section 358 Cr.P.C. and passed the said order. 4. It is submitted by the learned Spl. 4. It is submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi is not in terms of Section 358 Cr.P.C. as Section 358 Cr.P.C. mandates that compensation may be awarded to the accused persons for whose arrest there was no sufficient ground to be paid by the person causing the police officer to arrest such person and in this case, the said person is the informant of the case namely Sangeeta Devi and there is a cap, that such compensation shall not exceed 1,000/- rupees but on both this score the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality; firstly instead of Sangeeta Devi- who is the informant of the case, the compensation has been directed to be paid by the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand, who was neither the informant nor he has any role in causing any police officer to arrest the accused persons of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the opposite parties have unnecessarily been arrested on false allegation and they have spent substantial time in judicial custody, hence they have rightly been compensated. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the arrest took place because of the negligence of the I.O. therefore, the I.O. is squarely responsible. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 358 (1) of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- “ Section 358-Compensation to persons groundlessly arrested (1) Whenever any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was no sufficient ground for causing such arrest, the Magistrate may award such compensation, not exceeding one thousand rupees, to be paid by the person so causing the arrest to the person so arrested, for his loss of time and expenses in the matter, as the Magistrate thinks fit” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The plain reading of Section 358 (1) of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that the same envisage, that if any person causes any police officer to arrest another person, in the absence of any sufficient ground for such arrest, then the court concerned may award such compensation to be paid by the person causing such arrest, without sufficient ground for such arrest. It is needless to mention that the said provision of law, impervious limit to the extent of which compensation can be awarded. The limit is INR1000 only. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there are serious allegations against the opposite parties of committing offence punishable under Section 336A/34 of Indian Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act was made against the opposite parties of this case, by the informant of the case, who is the mother of the alleged victim. So, if at all there is any material in the record for the court concerned to arrive at the conclusion that an arrest was effected in the absence of any sufficient ground therefor, in terms of Section 358 Cr.P.C., it is the informant of the case who caused the arrest of the opposite parties of the case by the police officer. So in terms of Section 358 Cr.P.C. it is the informant of the case who might have been ordered by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi to pay the compensation, that too to the extent of Rs.1,000/- but the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by directing the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, who has undisputedly no role in arrest of the opposite parties and that too compensation allowed to Rs.2,00,000/- each to each of the two opposite parties; is the same is not in consonance with law, so far as, the person who is to pay such compensation and the quantum of compensation to be paid. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality in exceeding its power conferred upon it by Section 358 Cr.P.C., in passing the impugned order. 9. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality in exceeding its power conferred upon it by Section 358 Cr.P.C., in passing the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in connection with POCSO Case No. 94 of 2017 arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 384 of 2017 is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.