Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The High Court relied on s. 345(6) of the Criminal. Procedure Code to reach the conclusion that the compounding of the offence had the effect of an acquittal with the result that once the offence was compounded the Board was not entitled to take into account the propriety or otherwise of the conduct of Hazarika in respect of the offence with which he had been charged.

Before us Mr. Sarjoo Prasad appearing in support of the appeal contended that s. 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code had no application to an offence under the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891.

"The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of the acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded."

It is, therefore, clear that to have the effect of an acquittal the offence compounded must be one specified either under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2). The principle behind the scheme seems to be that wrongs of certain classes which affect mainly a person in his individual capacity or character may be sufficiently redressed by composition with or without the leave of the court as the case may be but any such composition would have the effect of an acquittal. It was urged by Mr. Sarjoo Prasad that assuming the effect of an acquittal to be the wiping out or negation of the wrongful conduct on the part of the accused, the scope of sub-s. (6) was only limited to the offences specified in sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 345 and the principle thereof could not be extended to offences under other Acts unless there was a provision similar to sub-s. (6) in those Acts. It must be borne in mind that although the marginal note to s. 62 of the Assam Regulation is "power to compound offences" the word "compounding" is not used in sub-s.(1) cl. (a) of that section. That provision only empowers a forest officer to accept compensation for a forest offence from a person suspected of having committed it. The person so suspected can avoid being proceeded with for the offence by rendering compensation. He may think that he was being unjustly suspected of an offence and he ought to defend himself or he may consider it prudent on his part to pay such compensation in order to avoid the harassment of a pro- secution even when he is of the view that he had not committed the offence. By adopting the latter course he does not remove the suspicion of having committed the offence unless he is to have such benefit conferred on him by some provision of law. In effect the payment of compensation amounts to his acceptance of the truth of the charge against him. Sub-s. (2) of s. 62 only protects him with regard to further proceedings, but has not the effect of clearing his character or vindicating his conduct.