Audhi Rai and Others vs Emperor

This is an application in Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction and arises out of the conviction of certain persons who are the petitioners here and who were convicted of certain offenses against the provisions of Sections 504 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Apparently the first petitioner was sentenced to six weeks rigorous imprisonment, the second and third to one month''s rigorous imprisonment and the fourth and the fifth accused to a fine of Rs. 40 each (or in default to one month''s rigorous imprisonment) u/s 504; although they were found guilty also u/s 341, no separate sentences were passed in respect of the offence committed against the provisions of that section. Certain circumstances in this case to which I will refer presently, were somewhat curious, but the legal points which have been placed before me and upon which I have been asked to interfere are really but two in number. The first point is certainly an interesting one. It is said that there was a possibility of a compromise and that in fact there had been a compromise. When the case had been tried (the Sub-Divisional Officer thought there was no effective composition) it went up on revision to the Sessions Judge of Monghyr, and it was then suggested that even then it was open to him to allow the conviction to be set aside on a composition on agreement being accomplished. He held, however, that on the authority of certain cases, he could not accept or give effect to any such alleged compromise. The question; is now, however, brought before me and it is suggested that u/s 345 423(1)(d) and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is possible for the matter to be dealt with in that manner. It is said that under the provisions of that section it may be Open for a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction to give effect to a compromise. The point has been very wall put before me by the learned. Counsel for the petitioners and a good deal of authority has been quoted to me much of which was in favour of the contention, whilst much on the other hand was against it, but I think that the latest case of Akshoy Singh v. Rameswar Bagdi 35 Ind. Cas. 515 : 43 C 1143 : 20 C.W.N. 107 : 17Cri. L.J. 39 places the matter, so far as I am concerned substantially cut of further serious consideration. In that case which was heard before Mr. Justice Mookerjee and Mr. Justice Sheepshanks, it was held that the High Court has no power as a Court of Revision u/s 439 read with Section 423(1)(d), to sanction the composition of an offense when entered into after the conviction of the accused. The learned Judges there quoted every case which has been quoted before me and whilst dissenting from some followed a line of decision of which the following are the most important, Adhar Chandra Dey v. Subodh Chandra Ghosh 26 Ind. Cas. 176 : 18 C.W.N. 1212 : 15 Cri. L.J. 728, Sankar Rangayya v. Sankar Ramayya 31 Ind. Cas 350 : 16 Cr. L. 3: 29 M.L.S. 621 : 18 M.L.T. 381 and Ram Chandra v. Emperor 28 Ind. Cas. 103 : 37 A. 127 : 13 A.L.J. 104, I think in view of these that it is unnecessary for me really to review this matter further.