Amar Ali and Others vs Emperor

Jwala Prasad, J.—This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Parnea u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, He recommends that the conviction of the accused for offenses u/s 21 of Act I of 1871 and u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, be set aside.

Mr. Pal opposes the reference, The aforesaid offences were compoundable and on the 16th June 1920 a petition of compromise was filed, and the Court recorded the following order:

Case compromised. Petition filed. The injury has not healed as yet. Complainant must again appear on the 30th June 1990, when I shall pass final orders, etc.

On the 30th June the Magistrate directed summons to issue on the accused upon the ground that the complainant did not want to compromise. This order of the Magistrate was obviously illegal and unwarranted by law. The Magistrate was bound, on the 16th June when the compromise petition was filed, to forthwith accept it or to refuse it. His order of that date recording that the case was compromised amounts to an acceptance of the petition of the parties. He became functus officio and ceased to have any jurisdiction over the matter. The compromise absolved not only the accused present but also all the accused as the entire offense was compounded. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is supported by the authority Shyam Behari Singh v. Sagar Singh 58 Ind. Cas. 824 : 1 P.L.T. 32 : 20 Cri.L.J. 824 : (1921) Pat 144 quoted by him and is in consonance with the provisions of the Code. Mr. Pal virtually concedes this.

The reference is, therefore, accepted and, as recommended by the learned Sessions Judge, the conviction of, and the sentence passed against, the accused are set aside.