In the case at hand, the incident occurred on 21.02.2009. The
Sessions Court ultimately found the convict-petitioners guilty of
committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC. Section 447 is compoundable all along. Offence under Section 324
was compoundable before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act),
2005 (Act 25 of 2005) came into force. Though the Act 25 of 2005 was
published on 23.06.2006, it was stipulated that it shall come into
effect only from the date of its notification. The Amendment Act was
brought into force, by notification w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Evidently, on the
date of occurrence, the offence under Section 324
of IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court in view of the
provisions prescribed in the table under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
13. The Amendment Act of 2005, intended to give effect w.e.f. the date of notification. So, before the date of notification though the amendment was made and published, it had no force and therefore, the provision which was existing before the date of coming into force and the Amendment Act shall operate. Normally in cases of all compoundable offences, compromise is encouraged and often such cases are referred to Lokadalat or mediation centers to have a settlement of the dispute between the parties with a view to bring amity between the parties and to maintain peace and tranquility. Compromise, in all cases compoundable in nature, is for the benefit and welfare of the society as a whole and therefore, the Courts may encourage such compounding where the parties voluntarily come forward to do so.
citation;2013 CR L J 1712( Gauhati)
1. Respondent No. 2, Anil Das, set the criminal law in motion lodging an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Kailashahar P.S. on 23.02.2009 alleging inter alia that on 21.02.2009 at about 09-00/09-30 p.m., the petitioners here-in, trespassed in his house, armed with lathi etc. and beaten up respondent Nos. 2 to 6 inflicting severe injuries. The FIR was registered as Kailashahar P.S. case 3 No. 39 of 2009 under Sections 448/ 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Police investigated upon the offence alleged and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners, herein, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 448/ 323/ 324/ 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and the case was renumbered as GR 72 of 2009. Trial was taken up in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar for the offence alleged and on conclusion of trial, by judgment dated 04.07.2012, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held the accused-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment to suffer S.I. for 15 days. Further, under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for one month.
1.1 The Petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal 21(3)/2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2012, upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC, but modified the order of conviction and sentence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC to conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment to suffer S.I. for one month.
1.2 While the appeal was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, a joint petition supported by affidavit was filed by the convict-appellant-petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6(victim injured persons) stating that they have amicably compromised the case and, therefore, prayed for permitting them to compound the offence but the prayer was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 01.09.2012, on the ground that the offence was not compoundable in nature.
1.3 The convict-petitioners preferred the present revisional application challenging the judgment and order, passed by learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No. 21(3)2012, which has been admitted for hearing. While this revisional application is pending for hearing, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 i.e. the victims of the alleged occurrence, filed a separate application under sections 320/ 401/ 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking permission for compounding the offence on the ground that learned Sessions Judge found the convict-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 324/ 447 read with Section 34 of IPC, which were compoundable in nature at the time when the offence was committed. The said petition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is registered as CM application No. 216 of 2012.
Heard learned counsel Mr. Anupam Pal for the convict-petitioners, learned P.P., for the State respondent and learned Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
2. The only question posed for decision of this Court is whether the prayer for permission to compound the offence under Section 324 of IPC, as prayed for, is entertainable or not, after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act) 2005, (Act 25 of 2005) which came into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009.
3. Learned counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 with much of emphasis, moved the application filed by the respondents, which has been registered as CM application No. 216 of 2012 and contended that the learned Sessions Judge while found the accused-appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC would accord the permission to compound the offence, since on the date of commission of the alleged offence, it was compoundable in nature. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Bineesh and another v. State of Kerala reported in MANU/KE/0825/2012 : 2012 Cr LJ, 4128, learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 cannot stand in the way of entertaining the petition seeking permission of compound the offence since the offence was committed before coming into effect of the said Amendment Act.
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Anupam Pal representing the convict-appellants, submitted that the appellants and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are co-villagers residing in the same neighbourhood. Because of misunderstanding between them, the incident occurred, as a result of which the Criminal Case cropped up, which has ended in conviction of the accused petitioners but gradually, thereafter they could realize the adverse effect of the dispute and differences between the close neighbours which is harmful for the peace, tranquility and advancement of both the groups and considering all aspects for their future good, they compromised the dispute between themselves and decided to approach the Court to accord permission for compounding the offence but unfortunately, the Court has refused the same on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. He has submitted that since the learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447/ 324 read with Sections 34 of IPC, and both the offences were compoundable in nature on the date of commission of the offence, this Court may accord necessary permission to compound the offence for fair ends of justice to both sides. Learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar has submitted that the State has no objection, if the permission is accorded to compound the offence, since it is evident on record that the parties to the case voluntarily compromised it for their future peaceful existence.
5. On perusal of L.C. records of the Sessions Court, it appears, the convict-petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed a joint application supported by affidavit, before the learned Sessions Judge, seeking permission to compound the offence but the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 01.09.2012, rejected the prayer holding that the offence was not compoundable in nature.
6. Further, going through the records, it appears that the offence alleged was committed on 21.02.2009 and police submitted charge-sheet against the convict-appellant-petitioners under Sections 448/ 323/ 324/ 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the convict appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge interfered in the finding of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and while maintaining the conviction and sentence under Section 447 of IPC, modified the finding of conviction and sentence under Section 326 of IPC and accordingly, found the convict petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. So, ultimate position of the case as it stands now, the convict-appellant-petitioners have been found guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC. Section 447 is compoundable all along as prescribed in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Before the Code of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 came into force, offence under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court as prescribed in the table, under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) has taken out Section 324 of IPC from the sphere of compounding and thereby made it non-compoundable.
7. Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005 (Act No. 25 of 2005) was published on 23.06.2006, stipulating that it will take its effect only from the date of its notification. The amendment was brought into effect, by notification w.e.f. 31.12.2009. It is, therefore, evident that before 31-12-2009, the original provision prescribing compounding of offence punishable under Section 324 as prescribed in the table, under sub-section (2) of Section 320, was in operation and in force.
8. The issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mathura Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/0673/2009 : (2009) 13 SCC 420. The Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in the case of Manoj & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/4338/2008 : (2008) 9 SCC 116 : (AIR 2009 SC 22 : 2009 Cri LJ 344), in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment observed thus:--
11. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Bineesh & Anr., (MANU/KE/0825/2012 : 2012 Cri LJ 4128) (supra) in almost under similar facts and circumstances of this case, allowed the petition by which the parties prayed for permission to compound the offence.
12. In the case at hand, the incident occurred on 21.02.2009. The Sessions Court ultimately found the convict-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC. Section 447 is compoundable all along. Offence under Section 324 was compoundable before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) came into force. Though the Act 25 of 2005 was published on 23.06.2006, it was stipulated that it shall come into effect only from the date of its notification. The Amendment Act was brought into force, by notification w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Evidently, on the date of occurrence, the offence under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court in view of the provisions prescribed in the table under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
13. The Amendment Act of 2005, intended to give effect w.e.f. the date of notification. So, before the date of notification though the amendment was made and published, it had no force and therefore, the provision which was existing before the date of coming into force and the Amendment Act shall operate. Normally in cases of all compoundable offences, compromise is encouraged and often such cases are referred to Lokadalat or mediation centers to have a settlement of the dispute between the parties with a view to bring amity between the parties and to maintain peace and tranquility. Compromise, in all cases compoundable in nature, is for the benefit and welfare of the society as a whole and therefore, the Courts may encourage such compounding where the parties voluntarily come forward to do so.
14. In view of discussions made above, and the law settled down by the Apex Court, the petition made for permission to compound the offence is entertained and allowed.
15. In effect thereof as prescribed in sub-section (8) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the convict-appellant-petitioners are acquitted in view of the compounding of the offence and set at liberty.
16. The revisional application along with the CM application accordingly stands disposed of. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment.
citation;2013 CR L J 1712( Gauhati)
13. The Amendment Act of 2005, intended to give effect w.e.f. the date of notification. So, before the date of notification though the amendment was made and published, it had no force and therefore, the provision which was existing before the date of coming into force and the Amendment Act shall operate. Normally in cases of all compoundable offences, compromise is encouraged and often such cases are referred to Lokadalat or mediation centers to have a settlement of the dispute between the parties with a view to bring amity between the parties and to maintain peace and tranquility. Compromise, in all cases compoundable in nature, is for the benefit and welfare of the society as a whole and therefore, the Courts may encourage such compounding where the parties voluntarily come forward to do so.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Crl. Rev. P. No. 84 of 2012
Decided On: 11.01.2013
Prabhat Das and Ors.Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: S.C. Das, J.citation;2013 CR L J 1712( Gauhati)
1. Respondent No. 2, Anil Das, set the criminal law in motion lodging an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Kailashahar P.S. on 23.02.2009 alleging inter alia that on 21.02.2009 at about 09-00/09-30 p.m., the petitioners here-in, trespassed in his house, armed with lathi etc. and beaten up respondent Nos. 2 to 6 inflicting severe injuries. The FIR was registered as Kailashahar P.S. case 3 No. 39 of 2009 under Sections 448/ 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Police investigated upon the offence alleged and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners, herein, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 448/ 323/ 324/ 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and the case was renumbered as GR 72 of 2009. Trial was taken up in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar for the offence alleged and on conclusion of trial, by judgment dated 04.07.2012, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held the accused-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment to suffer S.I. for 15 days. Further, under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for one month.
1.1 The Petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal 21(3)/2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2012, upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, under Section 447 read with Section 34 of IPC, but modified the order of conviction and sentence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC to conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment to suffer S.I. for one month.
1.2 While the appeal was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, a joint petition supported by affidavit was filed by the convict-appellant-petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6(victim injured persons) stating that they have amicably compromised the case and, therefore, prayed for permitting them to compound the offence but the prayer was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 01.09.2012, on the ground that the offence was not compoundable in nature.
1.3 The convict-petitioners preferred the present revisional application challenging the judgment and order, passed by learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No. 21(3)2012, which has been admitted for hearing. While this revisional application is pending for hearing, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 i.e. the victims of the alleged occurrence, filed a separate application under sections 320/ 401/ 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking permission for compounding the offence on the ground that learned Sessions Judge found the convict-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 324/ 447 read with Section 34 of IPC, which were compoundable in nature at the time when the offence was committed. The said petition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is registered as CM application No. 216 of 2012.
Heard learned counsel Mr. Anupam Pal for the convict-petitioners, learned P.P., for the State respondent and learned Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
2. The only question posed for decision of this Court is whether the prayer for permission to compound the offence under Section 324 of IPC, as prayed for, is entertainable or not, after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act) 2005, (Act 25 of 2005) which came into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009.
3. Learned counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 with much of emphasis, moved the application filed by the respondents, which has been registered as CM application No. 216 of 2012 and contended that the learned Sessions Judge while found the accused-appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC would accord the permission to compound the offence, since on the date of commission of the alleged offence, it was compoundable in nature. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Bineesh and another v. State of Kerala reported in MANU/KE/0825/2012 : 2012 Cr LJ, 4128, learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 cannot stand in the way of entertaining the petition seeking permission of compound the offence since the offence was committed before coming into effect of the said Amendment Act.
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Anupam Pal representing the convict-appellants, submitted that the appellants and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are co-villagers residing in the same neighbourhood. Because of misunderstanding between them, the incident occurred, as a result of which the Criminal Case cropped up, which has ended in conviction of the accused petitioners but gradually, thereafter they could realize the adverse effect of the dispute and differences between the close neighbours which is harmful for the peace, tranquility and advancement of both the groups and considering all aspects for their future good, they compromised the dispute between themselves and decided to approach the Court to accord permission for compounding the offence but unfortunately, the Court has refused the same on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. He has submitted that since the learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447/ 324 read with Sections 34 of IPC, and both the offences were compoundable in nature on the date of commission of the offence, this Court may accord necessary permission to compound the offence for fair ends of justice to both sides. Learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar has submitted that the State has no objection, if the permission is accorded to compound the offence, since it is evident on record that the parties to the case voluntarily compromised it for their future peaceful existence.
5. On perusal of L.C. records of the Sessions Court, it appears, the convict-petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed a joint application supported by affidavit, before the learned Sessions Judge, seeking permission to compound the offence but the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 01.09.2012, rejected the prayer holding that the offence was not compoundable in nature.
6. Further, going through the records, it appears that the offence alleged was committed on 21.02.2009 and police submitted charge-sheet against the convict-appellant-petitioners under Sections 448/ 323/ 324/ 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the convict appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge interfered in the finding of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and while maintaining the conviction and sentence under Section 447 of IPC, modified the finding of conviction and sentence under Section 326 of IPC and accordingly, found the convict petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. So, ultimate position of the case as it stands now, the convict-appellant-petitioners have been found guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC. Section 447 is compoundable all along as prescribed in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Before the Code of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 came into force, offence under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court as prescribed in the table, under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) has taken out Section 324 of IPC from the sphere of compounding and thereby made it non-compoundable.
7. Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005 (Act No. 25 of 2005) was published on 23.06.2006, stipulating that it will take its effect only from the date of its notification. The amendment was brought into effect, by notification w.e.f. 31.12.2009. It is, therefore, evident that before 31-12-2009, the original provision prescribing compounding of offence punishable under Section 324 as prescribed in the table, under sub-section (2) of Section 320, was in operation and in force.
8. The issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mathura Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/0673/2009 : (2009) 13 SCC 420. The Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in the case of Manoj & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/4338/2008 : (2008) 9 SCC 116 : (AIR 2009 SC 22 : 2009 Cri LJ 344), in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment observed thus:--
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.01.1999 at about 10:00 a.m. complainant Bahadur Singh (P.W. 4) along with Rakesh (P.W. 2) and Ram Varan Singh (P.W. 9) (both hostile witnesses) was excavating sand on the bank of river Devipura near village Duhia Chak. Appellant 2 armed with 12 bore gun, his brother appellant 1 armed with katta (country made firearm) and Ram Avatar, accused holding pharsa in his hand came to the spot and started abusing the complainant (P.W. 4). P.W. 4 told them that he was extracting sand from Government land. It was alleged that Ram Avatar, accused gave pharsa-blow which caused injury to the calf/ankle of complainant's left leg, back and knee. Appellant 2 fired gunshot which hit on the wrist of right hand of the complainant whereas appellant 1 fired pellets from katta which hit the head and forehead of Bahadur Singh, who as a result of receiving the injuries fell on the ground. All the three accused persons thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence.9. In the case of Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. the State of Gujarat and others reported in MANU/SC/0254/2010 : (2010) 6 SCC 688 : (AIR 2010 SC 2321). The Apex Court considered the same issue and in para 5 observed thus:--
4. Injured Bahadur Singh lodged First Information Report (Exhibit-P5) on the same day at Police Station, Bijoli. He was sent to the hospital for medical examination. Investigation of the case was conducted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Babu Ram Sharma (P.W. 10) on the spot. During investigation, he seized one brass cartridge and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Sub-Inspector Ashok Tiwari (P.W. 14) arrested appellant 1 on 8-2-1999 and recorded his disclosure statement (Ext. P-11). Pursuant thereto, katta which was being used by him at the time of occurrence of the offence, was produced from a hidden place at the back of kothi constructed in the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Rami Avatar was arrested on 8-2-1999 and on his statement; pharsa was recovered from the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Pistol allegedly used by appellant 2 was examined by Santosh Singh (P.W. 11) in D.R.P. Line, Gwalior, who certified that the said pistol was in running condition as per his Report (Ext. P-18) Brij Mohan Sharma, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (P.W. 12) produced on record permission (Ext. P-19) to prosecute the accused under the Arms Act.
5. On receipt of Injury report and x-ray report prepared by Dr. Purshottam Jaju (P.W. 5) and Dr. Avinash Naidu (P.W. 6) and completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the abovesaid three accused in the Court of the First Class Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate committed the trial of the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge assigned the trial of the case to the Special Judge (NDPS) -cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. The accused persons were charge-sheeted under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC, Section 25(1-B)(a) and Section 3 of the Arms Act. The accused denied charges and claim to be tried.
This Court finds that after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)Act, 2005 from 23-6-2006 the offence under Section 324, IPC is made non-compoundable. However, in this case the offence under Section 324, IPC was committed on 23-7-1986 on which date it was compoundable with the permission of the court. As the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 is not applicable to the facts of the case, the offence under Section 324. IPC would be compoundable with the permission of the court.10. In both the above reported cases, the Apex Court considered that since the offence committed under Section 324 of IPC was before Amendment Act came into force it was compoundable with the permission of the Court pursuant to the provisions prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. as was in force before the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005 came into effect on 31.12.2009.
11. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Bineesh & Anr., (MANU/KE/0825/2012 : 2012 Cri LJ 4128) (supra) in almost under similar facts and circumstances of this case, allowed the petition by which the parties prayed for permission to compound the offence.
12. In the case at hand, the incident occurred on 21.02.2009. The Sessions Court ultimately found the convict-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC. Section 447 is compoundable all along. Offence under Section 324 was compoundable before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) came into force. Though the Act 25 of 2005 was published on 23.06.2006, it was stipulated that it shall come into effect only from the date of its notification. The Amendment Act was brought into force, by notification w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Evidently, on the date of occurrence, the offence under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court in view of the provisions prescribed in the table under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
13. The Amendment Act of 2005, intended to give effect w.e.f. the date of notification. So, before the date of notification though the amendment was made and published, it had no force and therefore, the provision which was existing before the date of coming into force and the Amendment Act shall operate. Normally in cases of all compoundable offences, compromise is encouraged and often such cases are referred to Lokadalat or mediation centers to have a settlement of the dispute between the parties with a view to bring amity between the parties and to maintain peace and tranquility. Compromise, in all cases compoundable in nature, is for the benefit and welfare of the society as a whole and therefore, the Courts may encourage such compounding where the parties voluntarily come forward to do so.
14. In view of discussions made above, and the law settled down by the Apex Court, the petition made for permission to compound the offence is entertained and allowed.
15. In effect thereof as prescribed in sub-section (8) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the convict-appellant-petitioners are acquitted in view of the compounding of the offence and set at liberty.
16. The revisional application along with the CM application accordingly stands disposed of. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment.
citation;2013 CR L J 1712( Gauhati)
No comments:
Post a Comment