THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR CRL.R.C.M.P.No.3614 of 2011 in CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.255 of 2006 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.255 of 2006 ORDER: Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy for the petitioner- accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner-accused filed this criminal revision assailing his conviction under Sections 452 and 354 IPC and the sentences imposed by the appellate court i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, in Crl.A.No.97 of 2003. 3. Today Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy says that both the petitioner Kuruba Bille Osurappa and the de facto complainant/victim i.e. Kurubakuntla Ganga Devi have compromised the matter and they also filed a petition Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3614 of 2011 to that effect along with affidavit of the de facto complainant/victim. Both of them are present and they have admitted the terms of compromise also. 4. It may be noted that previously the offence under Section 354 IPC was compoundable but by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009), i.e. with effect from 09.01.2009, the said offence has been made non-compoundable. In the present case, the date of offence is 03.06.2001 on which date the said offence was compoundable and therefore the benefit of that provision should go to the petitioner-accused. Accordingly, CRL.R.C.M.P.No.3614 of 2011 is allowed and the compromise is recorded with regard to the offence under Section 354 IPC as it is compoundable. 5. With regard to the offence under Section 452 IPC it is not a compoundable one. It is seen that following his conviction for the offence under Section 452 IPC, the trial court awarded a sentence of six months simple imprisonment and to pay Rs.500/- as fine and further it directed the said substantive sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently with the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 354 IPC. As the offence under Section 452 IPC is not compoundable, no compromise can be recorded for the same and conviction for the same has to be confirmed and it is accordingly ordered also. 6. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner-accused was initially remanded to judicial custody in the case on 27.06.2001 and was released on bail on 16.07.2001 and later on dismissal of his appeal the petitioner was sent to jail and he was in fail from 07.02.2006 to 10.02.2006. It is stated that he has been in custody for about 25 days. Having regard to the fact that the parties have now compromised the main offence under Section 354 IPC, I am of the opinion that while acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 354 IPC in terms of compromise, ends of justice would be served if, while confirming the conviction under Section 452 IPC, the accused is sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone while maintaining the fine for the same. Further the fine if any paid for the offence under Section 354 IPC shall be refunded to the accused. 7. This revision case and the petition are accordingly disposed of. ______________________ N. RAVISHANKAR, J 16th December 2011 CVRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR CRL.R.C.M.P.No.3614 of 2011 in CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.255 of 2006 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.255 of 2006 16th December 2011 CVRK