HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2645 of 2011 & Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2644 of 2011 in CRL.R.C.No. 1071 of 2005 O R D E R: Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2645 of 2011 The sole petitioner was the accused of the offence u/Sec.354 IPC before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet in SC No.340 of 2002. The learned trial Judge found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable u/sec.354 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with appropriate default clause. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation to P.W.1 (Victim) out of the fine amount paid by the accused. The sole petitioner preferred an appeal before the II Addl. Sessions Court, Nalgonda at Suryapet. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 2. The offence is said to have occurred on 07.04.2002. The question arises whether the offence u/Sec.354 IPC is compoundable as it has now been treated as a non-compoundable offence. It is to be noted that amendment to Sec.320 Cr.P.C. was brought in the year 2009, whereas the offence in the instance case occurred on 07.04.2002 i.e., in the year 2002. A point of controversy is whether the offence u/Sec.354 IPC is compoundable so long as the offence was committed before the amendment to Sec.320 Cr.P.C. came into force. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 4. 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 2002. Consequently, the offence is compoundable. 5. The petition is accordingly, ordered and the sole revision petitioner is accorded permission to compound the offence u/Sec.354 IPC with P.W.2/2nd respondent. Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2644 of 2011 6. Today the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/P.W.2 are present. Both of them reported that they intend to compound the offence u/Sec.354 IPC. The compounding of the offence by the P.W.2/2nd respondent with the revision petitioner would appear to be a voluntary act. The 2nd respondent herein is accorded permission to compound the offence u/Sec.354 IPC with the revision petitioner. 7. Recording the submissions of the 2n d respondent/P.W.2, the petition is ordered. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence u/Sec.354 IPC. Crl.R.C.No.1071 of 2005: 8. In view of the findings recorded in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2644 of 2011, the revision is disposed of. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Dt. 09.09.2011 Mjl/* [1] (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 333