Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Ram Baran Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR42All474
AppellantEmperor
RespondentRam Baran Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 345, 438, and 439(d) - compounding of offences--revision--court exercising revisional jurisdiction not empowered to allow an offence to be compounded. - - section 345 of the code of criminal procedure in clause 7 distinctly says: the sessions judge himself clearly could not allow a composition, because he had no power on revision of passing -an order of acquittal. if the legislature had intended to grant this court power to allow a composition on revision, it would clearly have said so in section 345, whereas it has not done so and has clearly stated that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that section......on revision. the sessions judge himself clearly could not allow a composition, because he had no power on revision of passing - an order of acquittal. all that he could do was to refer the matter to this court. it is urged that this court under section 439, has, in revision, the powers given to an appellate court under section 423 of the code, and it is urged that clause (d) of the latter section is quite wide enough to enable this court to allow a composition to be filed before it on revision. that clause runs as follows: 'may make any amendment or any consequential , or incidental order that may be just or proper,' this, in my opinion, cannot possibly be held to enable the court to allow a composition to be filed, a composition means an acquittal. clause (d) is an addition to the.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. This is an application in revision. The applicants were convicted of an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each. They went in revision to the Sessions Judge and there they sought for permission to compromise the case with the opposite party. The Judge held that he had no power to allow a compromise in view of the terms of Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants thereupon came to this Court. Two points are taken, first of all that the Court of the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to allow a compromise to be filed although he had no power to acquit, and secondly that the sentence was unduly severe. In so far as the Sessions Judge's jurisdiction to allow a compromise to be filed is concerned, I think there is no force in this application. Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Clause 7 distinctly says: 'No: offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.' The first four clauses of the section refer to the compounding of a case in the original court of trial. Clause 5 says: 'that offences may be compounded when an accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending only on the leave of the court to which the accused has been committed or before which the appeal is to be heard,' Clause 6 says: 'The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused. ' There is no provision whatsoever in this section- for the composition of an offence when the matter, is before the court on revision. The Sessions Judge himself clearly could not allow a composition, because he had no power on revision of passing - an order of acquittal. All that he could do was to refer the matter to this Court. It is urged that this Court under Section 439, has, in revision, the powers given to an appellate court under Section 423 of the Code, and it is urged that Clause (d) of the latter section is quite wide enough to enable this Court to allow a composition to be filed before it on revision. That clause runs as follows: 'May make any amendment or any consequential , or incidental order that may be just or proper,' This, in my opinion, cannot possibly be held to enable the court to allow a composition to be filed, A composition means an acquittal. Clause (d) is an addition to the Code which was inserted in order to make it clear that when a court came to a certain decision, either a conviction or an acquittal, it could also pass any necessary amendment which followed as a consequence on the order which had been passed in the case. It was never intended to overrule Clause (7) of Section 345. My attention is called to the case of Emperor v. Ram Piyari (1909) I.L.R. 32 All. 153. On the other hand, there is another decision by one of, the two Judges who was concerned with, the former, in which he has taken the opposite view, I think this later view was the more correct. The Court has only those powers on revision which are granted to it by Section 439 and no further. If the Legislature had intended to grant this Court power to allow a composition on revision, it would clearly have said so in Section 345, whereas it has not done so and has clearly stated that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that section. The first ground for revision, therefore, fails. As regards the sentences the applicants are not persons of any position. They no doubt were rightly convicted. The matter was a trivial one and a sentence of Rs. 25 fine was perhaps hardly called for. In this respect I allow their application. I reduce the sentence of fine from one of Rs. 25 to one of-Rs, 10 in each case. The excess, if paid, will be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //