IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRL. R.C.M.P. NO. 1838 OF 2009 IN / AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.104 OF 2005 Between : Billa Chennaiah and others. .... Petitioners A N D The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. . …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRL. R.C.M.P. NO. 1838 OF 2009 IN / AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.104 OF 2005 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is directed against the Judgment, dated 16.06.2004 in C.A. No.188 of 2001, on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. 2. The revision petitioners / A-1 to A-3 is present and in proof of their identity they have filed ration cards and election cards. 3. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the revision petitioners / accused 1 to 3 as under: A-1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 IPC; A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 IPC; A3 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC. A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 326 IPC and therefore, he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the charge U/s 326. A3 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 326 r/w 34 IPC and therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to under go simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each, in default, to under go simple imprisonment for three months. 4. Against the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred C.A.No. 188 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, and the same was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, this riminal revision case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Section 320 (4) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to compromise the offence. 6. The wife of defacto complainant - Pw-1 filed an affidavit stating that her husband already compromised the offence before he died and now she is ready to compromise the offence. Legal heirs and sons of victim –Pw-2 also filed their affidavits stating that they are ready to compromise the offence. Today when the matter is called, legal heirs of the defacto complainant and victim are present and they are identified by their counsel. They stated that they compromised the offence outside the court and requested to permit them to compound the offence U/s 320 (4) (b) of Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the fact that, Pw-1 defacto complainant and Pw-2 victim who are dead and their legal representatives have come forward to compromise the offence out of court and requested to permit to compound the case under Section 320 (4) (b) Cr.P.C, they are permitted to compound the case as prayed for. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case and miscellaneous petition are hereby allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petitioners / A-1 to A-3 are acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine amount if any paid shall be return to the petitioners. ____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J. February 19, 2010. YVL