IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 69 OF 2004 ( ) AGAINST THE [ENTITY] IN [CASE NUMBER] OF SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 27-11-2003 AGAINST THE [ENTITY] IN [CASE NUMBER] OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,THRISSUR DATED 29-05-2002 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1: [ENTITY], S/O.BABU, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PUZHAKKAL, AMALA NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.P.SATHI BY ADV. [ENTITY] THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: NS [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 4th day of August, 2016 O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in [CASE NUMBER] of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. He was the accused in [CASE NUMBER] of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ('[ACT]' for short). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under [SECTION] [ACT] and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Against that, the accused preferred the above Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, where the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the 1st accused preferred this revision petition.
2. The charge against the accused is that on 08.09.1999 at 4.30 p.m., while PW1 was proceeding through Avenue road near Mission Quarters, Thrissur, the 1st accused snatched away her gold chain and sped away in a motor cycle driven by the 2nd accused. In this incident, Thrissur Town East Police registered a crime and after completing investigation, laid charge in the trial court. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 as documentary evidence. MO1 to MO3 were admitted as material objects. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. They did not adduce any defence evidence.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of court and filed [CASE NUMBER]. Both parties and their counsel signed in it. Revision petitioner and the injured were also present before court. Learned Public Prosecutor identified the injured. If the parties have settled the matter, there is no hesitation in allowing the petition. According to [SECTION], a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under [SECTION] may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. The offence under [SECTION] is compoundable where the value of the property does not exceed Rs.2,000/- with the permission of the Court. When the composition of offence under the section is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused under [SECTION] [ACT] with whom the offence has been compounded. Here, the value of the property is more than Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, a composition under [SECTION] [ACT] is not possible. In the absence of any other contention, the conviction under [SECTION] [ACT] is only to be confirmed.
5. The general scheme for compounding an offence has been explained under [SECTION] of the Code. But [SECTION] [ACT] says that no offences shall be compounded except as provided in the section. The offence under [SECTION] [ACT] is non compoundable. Any compromise between the accused person and the victim of the crime should not exonerate the criminal liability of the accused. However, when an offence is essentially of a private nature and not a serious one, the code consider it as a compoundable offence and some offences are compoundable with the permission of the court. Most of the compoundable offences are non cognizable, but all non-cognizable offences are not compoundable. On the other hand, the offences which are compoundable with the permission of the court are cognizable offence, at the same time all cognizable offences are not compoundable. Therefore [SECTION] [ACT] makes it clear that offences not provided by this section are not compoundable. Therefore, broadly speaking, offences other than those specified in [SECTION] [ACT] cannot be compounded. According to the scheme of the section, all offences under special or local laws are non compoundable and the legislature has to make a clear indication in those laws as to what extent offences under such laws should be compounded.
6. Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] held as follows:-
" The High Court also relied upon the decision in case of [ENTITY] case for the proposition that offence declared to be non- compoundable cannot be compounded at all even with the permission of the court. That is of course so. The offences which can be compounded are mentioned in [SECTION]. Those offences which are not mentioned therein cannot be permitted to be compounded. In Mohanty case the appellants were convicted by the trial court for offence under [SECTION]. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellants and convicted them for offence under [SECTION] and imposed sentence of six months. The trial court had sentenced the appellants for a period of five years' RI. The application for compounding was, however, dismissed by the High Court. This Court holding that the offence for which the appellants had been convicted was non-compoundable and, therefore, it could not be permitted to be compounded but considering that the parties had settled their dispute outside the court, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. It is, however, to be borne in mind that in the present case the appellants had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR under the circumstances abovestated".
(paragraph 9) Therefore a reading of the above decision makes it clear that after conviction of the accused in a non compoundable offence, it cannot be permitted to be compounded but considering the fact that the parties had settled their dispute outside the court, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
7. In [PRECEDENT], apex court held that non compoundable offences could not be compounded. In Maheshchand V. State of Rajasthan (1991 SCC (crl)
159), apex court granted permission to compound the offence under [SECTION] [ACT], but in [PRECEDENT] apex court overruled the decision.
8. Therefore conviction under [SECTION] [ACT] is confirmed. For the purpose of seeking the ends of justice, the sentence has to be reduced to the period already undergone. Apex Court in Ram Bujan V. State of UP (1973 SCC(crl) 870) held that if parties belonging to one family settled their dispute, it is not necessary to keep them in jail for a long time. In [PRECEDENT], apex court reiterated the view that to meet the ends of justice the sentence has to be reduced to the period already undergone.
9. As per the direction of this Court, the District Probation Officer reported that the revision petitioner is involved in two other crimes and he is not fit to be released under the provisions of the [ACT].
10. In the result, conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is confirmed and the revision petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Revision petition is disposed of as above.
[ENTITY], JUDGE / True Copy / NS/05/08/2016 P.A.To Judge