Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajkumar Sahu vs State Of M.P. on 8 January, 2015
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi
ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s).
578/2011
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/03/2010
in CRLA No. 818/1995 passed by the High Court Of M.P At Jabalpur)
RAJKUMAR SAHU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)
CRLMP No. 18850-851/2011(with c/delay in filing SLP)
Date : 08/01/2015 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Kunal Verma,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv.
Mr. Naveen Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Mishra Saurabh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for all the parties.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
In the result, the accused is acquitted from the charges alleged against him. Ordered accordingly.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2015.01.13 12:31:06 IST Reason: (SUMAN WADHWA) (RENU DIWAN)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2015 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)NO. 93 /2015) (CRLMP NO. 18850-18851/2011) Raj Kumar Sahu Appellant (s) VERSUS State of M.P. Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for all the parties.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The question of correctness of the impugned order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.818 of 1995 arises on various grounds during the pendency of this appeal.
The application is filed in these proceedings stating that the matter is compromised between the parties and learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to accept the same in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 688 and in case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 330 wherein this Court interpreted Section 324 of the IPC and held that Sec.320 was amended of the CR.P.C. by Amendment Act of 2005.S.28(a), which came into force w.e.f. 23.6.2006 and further held that amendment to the Cr.P.C. not applicable to the offence committed prior to 23.6.2006. In this case the occurrence is of 11.1.1990 therefore as on the date of occurrence (prior to the amendment) the offence was compoundable. Therefore, applying the decisions rendered by this Court in the aforesaid cases upon which reliance has been rightly placed, we have to permit the parties to -2- compromise the lis between the parties and we grant the request made in the said application for compounding of the offence. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the result, the accused is acquitted from the charges alleged against him. Ordered accordingly.
...................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ...................J. (R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi;
January 8, 2015.