LexMD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S,C.R. 561 y' MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR AND ORS. A V. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No.1343 of 2008) AUGUST 25, 2008 B l [C.K. THAKKER AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.320 - Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) - Compounding of offence - Offence under s. 324 /PC - c Allegedly committed in 1995 - Parties compromising the matter - Whether compounding of the offence was permissible - Held, Yes, since offence uls.324 was compoundable under the CrPC as it stood in 1995 - Though such offence is no more compoundable in view of the CrPC D (Amendment) Act, 2005, but the said Amendment Act came into force only from June 23, 2006 and thus has no application to the facts of the present case - Penal Code, 1860 - s.324. Appellants alongwith other accused persons E allegedly attacked 'A' with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries on different parts of his body. The Courts below convicted the Appellants under ss.324 and 147 IPC. It was stated before this Court, that the parties had F meanwhile compromised the matter and had entered intp an amicable settlement. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was as to whether in view of the said G ' compromise and settlement, compounding of the offence ... ~ allegedly committed by the Appellants under s.324 IPC was permissible. Allowing the appeal, the Court 561 H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R. A HELD:1. The compounding of an offence signifies that the person against whom an offence has been committed has received some gratification to an act as an inducement fo·r his abstaining from proceeding further with the case. Certain offences are very serious s in which compromise or settlement is not permissible. Some other offences, on the other hand, are not so serious and the law may allow the parties to settle them by entering into a compromise. [Para 12] [566-G-F] Vinjay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahkari Bank Ltd. C (2008) 2 sec 305 - relied on. 2. 1. s.320, CrPC deals with offences which are compoundable, either by the parties without the. l~av.e of the Court or by the parties but only with the leave of 0 the Court. Sub-section (1) of s.320 enumerates the offences which are compoundable without the leave of the Court, while sub-section (2) of the said section specifies the offences which are compoundable with the leave of the Court. Offences not referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section .320 and not included in E the concerned Table are not compoundable. Similarly, offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. Sub-section (8) of s.320 CrPC expressly enacts that where the composition of an offence under this section is recorded F by the Col!rt, it shall have effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. Under the Code, as originally enacted in 1973, an offence punishable under s.324, IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) was made G compoundable with the leave of the Court. However the offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous )- ~ weapons or means punishable under s.324, IPC is no more compoundable in view of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) which H came into force from June 23, 2006. [Paras 13, 14, 15, MD. ABDUL SUFAN LASKAR & ORS. v. STATE 563 OF ASSAM ~-r 16] [566-H, 567-A-H, 568-A] A 2.2. The appellants had allegedly committed the offence on June 15, 1995. In view of the above fact, Act 25 of 2005 has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, there is no ground to refuse permission as B ~ sought by the parties who have compromised the offence :/. which was compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1995. If it is so, compounding can be permitted and accused (appellants) can be acquitted. [Para 17] [268-8-C] Case Law Reference c (2008) 2 sec 305 relied on Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1343 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2007 of D ~ the High Court of Assam at Gauhati in Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2003 -i Azim H. Laskar and Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellants. Vishal Arun, Anand and Avijit Roy (for Mis. Corporate E Law Group) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.