RAMESHCHANDRA J. THAKKAR versus A. P. JHAVERI & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 13-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
', 
H 
691 
RAMESaCHANDRAJ. THAKKAR 
v. 
A. P. JHAVERI & ANR. 
October 13, 1972 
(H R. KHANNA ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 439-Revisional 
Powtr of lfigll Court-Trial Court allowing compo1111di11g of a 11011-
compotmdable offence and offence under s. 420, /.P.C. and acquitting 
accused--Order one and Indivisible-Power of High Court lo set asidd 
acquittal for borll offences. 
, The respondent filed a complaint against the c,ppellnnt nllcging that 
he .had committed offences under s. 4t0 I.P.C., e.nd s. 13 of the Maha· 
rashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of O>nstruc· 
tion, Sale, Management and Trtonsfer) Act, 1963, 
in 
thBt 
he 
had 
contravened ss. 3(2) (a) a.nd 4 of the Act. 
><fter some evidence was 
recorded the Magistrate passed an order that since 
the 
accused 
had 
undert~ken to do cer!Un things within a certain period the complainant 
did not wish to proceed with the trial, that therefore 
the 
case 
was 
compounded, and that the accused was acquitted. As the appellant went 
back on the undertaking the respondent 
moved 
the 
Magistrate 
for 
tl!.lcing action for contempt of Court. The Magistrate directed that the 
papers may be sent to the High Court 'for 
appropria!e 
action. 
The 
High Court in revision, after notic.: to' the appellant held that it was 
not a fit case for taking action for contempt but set aside the order of 
acquittal of the '4'pellant and directed that the Magistrate should proceed 
with the trial. 
Dismissing the appeal to. this Court, 
HELD: (IJ The offence under s. 13 of the Mahara.•htra Act. WM 
not compoundable with or without the permission of the· Court. 
Where 
an acquittal is based on compounding and the compounding is inv&lid 
in law, the acquittal would be liable to be set aside. In the 
present 
case, as the acquittal of the appellant by the trial Court was based upon 
the compounding of an offence which was not compoun~able the High 
Court rightly set aside the acquittal of the appellant. [695E-G; 696C-E] 
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. Sate of Andhra Pradesh. [i963] 3 S.C.R; 
412, followed. 
(~) Even though the High Court acted suo 1notu in setting aside the 
acquittal of the appella.nt there was no irregularity in the procedure 
adopt~d by the High ~urt: All that. is ~ecessar~. to bring the High 
Court~ powers of . rev1s1on into operation !S, such information as makes 
the High Court thmk that an order made by a Subordinate Court i~ fit 
for the exercise of its powers of revision. [696E, G] 
State of Kera/av. Narayani Amma Kamala Devi, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
943, followed. 
(3) ~ere is no sl!bstance in t~e ~ntention that High Court should 
not have mterfered with the acqmttal m so far f!f! it related 
to 
the 
offence under s. 420, I.P.C. [696H] 
(a) 
1:'11~ offence under _11. 420 l.P.C. can be compounded only with 
the permission of the Court and. no order granting IUCh permission has 
been produced before this Court. [697AJ 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973) 2 s.c.R. 
(b) Assuming that such permission . had been granted it. is nece$SOl'}' 
A 
to know the precise language, because, it is difficult to predicate whether 
the Magistrate would have granted the permission 
to compound 
the 
<Jffence under s.420, I.P.C., if he was aware that the offence under s. 13 
of the Maharashtra Act was not compoundable. [697 A-Bl 
(c) Moreover, the permission was on~ indivisible 
pe~mission for 
both the offences, and in such an event, it IS not penwssible to sever 
B 
the permission into two parts and to uphold it for the offence under 
s. 420, I.P.C., and hold it invalid in respect of the other offence. [697C-D) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION ; 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 88 of I 972. 
Appeal by ~pecial leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 24, I 972 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revi-
sion Application No. 9 of 1972. 
M. C Blwntlare, R. Nagaratnam, 
P. 
H. 
Parekh and S. 
Bhandare, for the appellant. 
c 
N. H. flingorani and K. Hingdrani, for respondent No. 1. 
D 
B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
jud;;ment of Bombay High Court whereby that court set aside an 
order of acquittal made against the· appellant in two cases and 
directed the trial magistrate to proceed with those cases in acwr-
dance with law. 
Parrnanand Jhaveri respondent No. 1 filed two complaints before 
the court o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.