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
2 paragraphs · 377 wordsRoss, J.—The petitioner was put on his trial on a charge of criminal misappropriation as Secretary of the Saidpur Co-operative Society in the district of Saran. With the permission of the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Society a petition was filed before the Magistrate saying that the matter had been satisfactorily settled out of Court to the benefit of both parties and, therefore, it was no longer necessary in the interest of the co operative movement to push on the matter any further; and it was decided by the Central Cooperative Union Ltd. Chapra, to compound the matter and the parties prayed, for leave to compromise the case. The Magistrate refused leave thinking that he would not be justified in allowing a compromise and thus getting the matter hushed up. But when the case has once been brought into Court and the parties have adjusted the matter between themselves, I do not think it can be said that this is a matter of hushing up the case. The learned District Magistrate refused to withdraw the prosecution because the petitioner was a clerk in the touzi department and, as a serious charge had been brought against him, he considered that he ought to clear his character. But this is a matter which is altogether irrelevant to the present prosecution.
I cannot see what bearing the fact that, the petitioner is a clerk in the touzi department of the Collectorate has upon the question whether this prosecution of the Secretary of a Co-operative Society should proceed or not. The directors say that it is not in the interest of the cooperative movement that the prosecution should proceed. There may have been many reasons for this and it is by no means to be inferred as a matter of course that the accused was guilty. The offence is compoundable with the leave of the Court and, in my opinion, this is a case in. which the discretion of the Court was not soundly exercised and leave ought to have been given. The High Court has power now under Clause 5(a), Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code, to allow cases to be compounded. I would, therefore, allow this prosecution to be compounded and quash the proceedings. The petitioner is acquitted.
