AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 245 wordsK.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ.—Leave granted.
Appellant stands convicted u/s 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 500. His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal and High Court dismissed his revision against which this appeal has been filed by special leave.
During the pendency of the special leave petition, Appellant had come to terms with the victim of the accident (P.W. 2) and thereupon a petition has been filed for permission of the Court to compound the offence. We issued notice to P.W. 2 Mohd. Ezaz. Today, Mr. Abhijit Sen Gupta entered appearance for him and submitted that as a matter of fact, the Appellant and P.W. 2 have come to terms regarding the offence and so permission is sought for compounding it.
Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court as can be seen from the second table given to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that the Appellant is an employee attached to Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and the consequences of the conviction will be detrimental to his career, we persuade ourselves to accord permission for compounding the offence. In the result, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him and acquit him u/s 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
