JUDGMENT Vaidya, J.The State has filed the above appeals against the orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manmad, on October 28, 1967, in two criminal cases before him, both of which related to an incident which took place at about 7-30 p.m. on October 7, 1966, in Manmad.The first information in one case was given by one Zumbarlal Rajmal Chajed and the first information in the other case was given by one Parasmal Mesulal Jain relating to the said incident.As these two appeals relate to the same incident and involve a common question of law, they can be disposed of by a single judgment.Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1968 arises out of Criminal case No. 778 of 1966 before the said Magistrate.A chargesheet was filed before him on October 15, 1966, against the seven respondents in that appeal, viz., (1) Bherulal Dagdulal Jain, (2) Kantilal Dagdulal Bardiya, (3) Madanlal Panalal Bardiya, (4) Dharmachand Dagduram Bardiya, (5) Parasmal Bherulal Bardiya, (6) Balu Kondaji Karde and (7) Shridhar Waman Paliwal.It was alleged in the said charge-sheet by the Police Sub-Inspector, Manmad city, that on October 7, 1966, at 7-30 p.m., the seven accused formed an unlawful assembly in an open street of Manmad city inasmuch as, as a result of a meeting of a bank, they entertained a common object of beating the complainant Zumbarlal Rajmal Chajed and witneses Amarchand Babulal Chajed, Manakchand Rajmal Chajed and Motilal Rajmal Chajed and in pursuance of that common object, they voluntarily caused injuries to them with blows and kicks and with wooden pieces and bamboo sticks and also abused them and threatened to kill them and thereby committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time for various reasons till March 17, 1967, when the parties filed an application exh.15 signed by the complainant Zumbarlal, the seven accused persons and the witnesses who were alleged to have been hurt in the course of riot.This application was objected to on behalf of the prosecution on the ground that by law, partial compounding was not allowed and if the parties wanted withdrawal, they should move the District Magistrate in respect of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet.The Judicial Magistrate, however, passed the following order on that very day:It may be noted here that in the application exh.15 the complainant, the accused and the witnesses referred to above had mentioned that the compromise was arrived at as a result of the efforts of many gentlemen and leaders.It also stated that the signatories to exh.15 belonged to merchant class and respectable families and as a result of this compromise, the relations among them were as they were before the incident and had become very harmonious and peaceful.On April 14, 1967, the accused filed an application exh.17 for adjournment of the case stating that they had applied to the District Magistrate for withdrawing the case and that application was not decided.It is most regrettable that the District Magistrate does not appear to have passed any order with regard to the withdrawal inspite of the waiting by the parties and the Court for more than four months.On August 4, 1967, the Judicial Magistrate who had succeeded the previous Judicial Magistrate framed a charge against the seven accused under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, the material portion of which was as under:That you on or about the 7-10-60 at 7-30 P.M. at Manmad were members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of common object of such assembly, viz., to cause hurt to Zumbarmal Chhajed, committed the offence of rioting and at that time were armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code....The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge.After framing the charge, the case was adjourned from time to time till September 20, 1967, when prosecution witness No. 1 Zumbarlal, the complainant, was examined as a witness.He proved his first information before the police at exh.Immediately after his evidence was recorded, an application was filed by the pleader for the accused submitting as under:The police have chargesheeted the accused under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 34, I.P.C. Except under Section 147, I.P.C., the offences under other sections are compoundable and are compounded.The complainant has averred that he has compounded the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. also.He does not intend to proceed with the trial.It is therefore requested that the accused may please be acquitted.This application was resisted on behalf of the prosecution on several grounds.The learned Magistrate, however, overruled the objections on behalf of the prosecution and following the decision of the Patna High Court in Ramphal v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 Cr. L. J. 111, came to the conclusion that since the main offences were compounded, there could not be a trial of the offence under Section 148, Indian Penal Code.He also relied on a judgment of the Assistant Judge of Nasik which was cited before him.He concluded that the offence under Section 148, Indian Penal Code must fail as the main offences have been compounded.He, therefore, acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.In Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1948 also the charge-sheet was filed on October 15, 1966, against the seven accused, viz., (1) Amarchand Babulal Chajed, (2) Babulal Rajmal Chajed, (3) Zumbarlal Rajmal Chajed, (4) Manakchand Rajmal Chajed, (5) Motilal Rajmal Chajed, (6) Bhaskar Shankar Nagare, (7) Sakharam Gopinath Barde.It may be noted that the accused Zumbarlal was the complainant in the other case.The accused Amarchand, Babulal Manakchand and Motilal were cited as witnesses in the other case.This case also took a parallel course to the other case and an application exh.15 was filed on March 17, 1967, i.e., on the same day on which exh.15 was filed in the other case and with the same contents signed by the complainant, the accused and the injured witnesses who were cited in the charge-sheet.The application was opposed on the same grounds on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Magistrate on the very day passed an order as follows:Thereafter an application was filed on September 20, 1967, which was similar to the application exh.27 in the other case.It is difficult to understand from the report as to how inspite of the composition of the offence under Section 447, there was a conviction under Sections 143 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, which conviction was upheld by Wallace J. It may be that the circumstances in that case showed that the two offences were distinct.No point arose in that ease as to whether the alleged offence under Section 447 was distinct from the offence under Section 143, although Wallace J. has pointed out that on a construction of Section 143 itself an offence under Section 143 was distinct from the criminal offence which the persons agreed and intended to commit.This led to hot words.On the following day at about 8 or 8-30 a.m., Ramphal Gope and others, who were the accused ill that case, came to the house of Ramdeo and demanded the price at once.The accused assaulted Ramdeo.Some of them went to the police.The police filed two charge-sheets against the fourteen accused who are involved in the two cases.In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code