HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CRL.A.Nos.229 of 2001 & Tr.Crl.A.No.1008 of 2001 CRL.A.Nos.229 of 2001 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND Gorle Raghuram .....RESPONDENT Tr.Crl.A.No.1008 of 2001 Between: Gorle Raghuram ..... APPELLANT AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.A.Nos.229 of 2001 & Tr.Crl.A.No.1008 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the judgmnt dated 22-12-1997 in Sessions Case No.10 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikaklam. 2. State filed Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2001 before this Court to enhance the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused in the above judgment, whereas the accused filed Criminal Appeal no.2 of 1997 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, challenging his conviction recorded in the above judgment of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. As per the orders of this Court dated 07-07-2001, the Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1997 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam was withdrawn and was transferred to this Court and renumbered as Tr. Criminal Appeal No.1008 of 2001, for disposal along with Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2001 since they arise out of the same judgment. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the defacto- complainant filed separate notarized affidavits in both the appeals stating that the matter has been compromised before the Lok Adalat and if the Hon’ble Court remands the matter to the trial Court, the compromise arrived at between the parties may be recorded and therefore, she requests to send the entire records of both the appeals to the trial Court. 4. The accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 354 IPC by the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the offence under Section 354 IPC with the permission of the Court is compoundable. 5. Therefore, the office is directed to send the entire records of both the appeals to the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Srikakulam, for recording compromise between the parties. For any reason, if the compromise is not effected, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Srikakulam, shall return the entire records to this Court for disposal of appeals in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid directions, both the appeals are directed to be listed before this Court if the matter is not compromised between the parties. __________________ 02nd February 2010 kvr