* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1740 of 2004 %26.08.2011 # Pati Ranga Reddy ….Petitioner Vs. $ The State of A.p. rep. by its Public Prosecutor …. Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 333 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 1740 of 2004 O R D E R: The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/Secs.354 and 448 IPC. The appellate court confirmed the Judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. 2. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the accused seeks permission to compound the offence. By virtue of the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2009, the offence u/sec.354 IPC is no more compoundable within the State of Andhra Pradesh. It however, is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences in this case occurred on 9.7.1999 and that the offence u/Sec.354 IPC was compoundable by the date of the offence and that the amendment which came into force on 31.12.2009 would apply to the case. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar Vs. State of Assam[1]. The offence u/Sec.324 IPC was compoundable with the permission of the court. Through the amendment dt.23.6.2006, Sec.324 IPC was removed from Sec.320 (2) Cr.P.C. so much so, Sec.324 IPC became non-compoundable. The Supreme Court held that as the offence occurred prior to the date of the amendment, the offence u/Sec.324 IPC was compoundable. 3. On the same analogy, the offence u/Sec.354 IPC is compoundable within the state of Andhra Pradesh so long as the offence was committed prior to 31.12.2009. In the present case the offence occurred in the year 1999. Consequently, the offence is compoundable. 4. Therefore, the revision is ordered remitting the case in SC No.661 of 2002 to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District to enable the petitioner to move the court to compound the offence. 5. Accordingly, the revision case is disposed of. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Dt. 26.8.2011 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o Mjl/* [1] (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 333