Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All169; 56Ind.Cas.239
AppellantRam Baran Singh and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredSee Ram Chandra v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 345, 439 - composition of offence--revision--high court or sessions judge, power of, to allow composition. - - section 345 of the criminal procedure code 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......is concerned, i think there is no force in this application. section 345 of the criminal procedure code 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.....
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 Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants, therefore, 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 Criminal Procedure Code 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, can-not 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 put 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 Ram Piyari v. Emperor 5 Ind. Cas. 696 : 7 A.L.J. 103 : 32 A. 153 : 11 Cr.L.J. 203. On the other hand, there is another decision See Ram Chandra v. Emperor, 28 Ind. Cas. 103 : 37 A. 127 : 13 A.L.J. 104 : 16 Cr.L.J. 247. Ed by one of the two Judges who was concerned with the former, in which he has taken the opposite view. I think this latter view was the more correct. This 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 sentence, 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 //