THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 831 OF 2011 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.810 OF 2004 Date: 24-06-2011 Between: Mannem Ramaiah. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 831 OF 2011 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.810 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Petitioner/Accused assailing Judgment dated 24-04-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2001, passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, confirming conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala, vide judgment in C.C. No.548 of 2000 for offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Now Crl.R.C.M.P. No.831 of 2011 is filed by both the parties seeking permission to compound the offence. T h e de facto complainant and the Revision petitioner/Accused are present. They have represented that they compromised the matter voluntarily and that they may be permitted to compound the offence and the second of them Criminal Revision Petitioner/Accused may be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against him. In this context, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bankat and another Vs. State of Maharasthra[1] where a similar question of compounding of offence punishable under Section 304-A arose. After taking into consideration relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter observing that the offence could not be compounded as it was not compoundable but however in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence could be limited to reasonable fine only and minimum sentence and accordingly modified the sentence of imprisonment from one year to the period already undergone by them besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the accused therein with default sentence. 3. In fact offence covered by Section 326 I.P.C. is not compoundable under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. Hence, it cannot be compounded, Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 831 of 2011 is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the said judgement, it is quite reasonable to convert the sentence imposed to the period of detention he would have undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- taking into consideration the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed modifying the sentence of imprisonment to the period of detention he would have suffered and payment of fine of Rs.20,000/- including the fine imposed by the trial Court. ____________________________ G. KRISHNAL MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 24-06-2011. DSH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 267 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.810 OF 2004 June 24, 2011 Dsh [1] (2005) 1 SCC 343