Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision or Act mentioned in the non obstante clause, the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provision indicated in the non obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment."

12. If Section 320 is completely not applicable, there is no procedure prescribed for acceptance of the compounding by the Court resulting in acquittal of the accused at the stage of trial or appeal or in revision either under Cr.P.C. or N.I.Act. If Section 320 is not applicable and entire Section 320 is excluded even if parties have compounded, it will not have the effect of acquittal as provided under Section 320 and if he is convicted and sentenced, he has to undergo sentence on the basis of the conviction entered notwithstanding the subsequent compounding or compromising of the offence. The learned Judge in Sabu George's case (supra) at paragraph 10 held as follows:

14. Can the offence under N.I.Act or offence punishable under Table I of Section 320 be compounded after conviction, when the appeal or revision is pending ? We have already seen that offence under the N.I.Act comes in par with offences mentioned in the table I of Section 320(1). Such offence is compoundable when the trial is pending, without permission from court. Therefore if such offences are compounded by the parties, the trial court is bound to accept the compounding. The trial court need only look into whether a genuine compromise was entered into and the compounding petition is filed accordingly. The resultant consequence is the effect of an acquittal of the accused. Sub Section (8) of 320 provides that the compounding of the offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused. It is not equivalent to discharge but acquittal and for the same offence, he cannot be again prosecuted in view of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. If the parties have compounded the offence, before the court taking cognizance, court can consider the same and if the offence alleged is compoundable under Section 320, the F.I.R. or complaint, as the case may be, can be quashed as a fit case in a petition under Section 482, if the court is satisfied that the offence was compounded. Hence offences can be compounded even before taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate and we are with full agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 13, which is reproduced below:

But there is no provision for compounding the offence after conviction without permission of or intervention from the court, whether the offence is compoundable, with or without permission as classified under Table I or Table II. This is because the compounding will have the effect of an acquittal and setting aside of conviction. Conviction, in the absence of appeal or revision, becomes a concluded matter. Sub clauses 5 and 6 of Section 320 allows the compounding of offence after conviction, if appeal or revision is pending by the permission of the appellate court or revisional court as the case may be. If the case is committed for trial also, leave of the committal court is necessary for compounding.

20. It was submitted that in Sabu George's case, there is another serious error in so far court imposed fine even after the composition was accepted and provided also for default sentence if fine is not paid. We have already quoted paragraphs 31 to 33 of the above decision in paragraph 3 of this order. We have already seen that in view of Section 320 (8), effect of compounding is that of the acquittal of the accused. Once the compounding is accepted by the court, court cannot impose any sentence. Imposition of fine and ordering imprisonment in default of payment of fine, after acquitting the accused is foreign to criminal law. After acquitting a person he cannot be sentenced either with imprisonment or fine. That is not possible. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used for sentencing a person by imposing a fine even after acquitting him, bye passing the statutory provisions. Justice can be administered only according to law. Imposition of fine is different from imposition of cost or compensation. We are of the opinion that, once the compounding is permitted, it will have the effect of an acquittal and no further imposition of fine or any type of sentence can be passed in view of Section 320 (8).