Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 337 of 1953, decided on 11th November 1953.
S. 345 (6)‑Whether partial compromise allowed‑Sessions Judge whether can reduce sentence without hearing the appeal on its merits.
A Sessions judge hearing an appeal is not authorised to allow partial compromise and reduce the sentence of imprison ment.
An order reducing the sentence could only be passed on hearing of the appeal on its merits and not on any partial compromise by the parties.
None represented either party.
‑In this case a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Dacca and on the opposite party Samad Ali at the instance of one Sahar Ali.
The case was tried by Mr. M. M. Huq, a Magistrate of the 1st Class of Narayanganj and ended in the conviction of the petitioner Sahar Ali under section 420, Pakistan Penal Code, on the 24th of November 1952. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and was also fined Rs. 300 or in default to a further term of rigorous imprison ment for two months.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dacca, on the 29th November 1952. The appeal was admitted and notices were duly served on the complainant. On the 22nd January 1953, the parties filed a joint petition asking for time to compromise the case. Time was granted until the 12th February 1953, for hearing if the compromise did not materialise. On the 12th February 1953, a joint petition of compromise was filed by the parties and was put up before the learned Sessions judge. The learned Sessions Judge disposed of the matter in the following order: "The petition of compromise filed by the parties to‑day is put up. Heard and considered the petition of compromise and terms thereof. The compromise is permitted in part only as it is a case of cheating. The conviction of the appellant under, section 420, P. P. C. is upheld, but his' sentence of imprison ment reduced to the days already served and the fine or the rigorous imprisonment in default is kept intact. The appellant is to pay down the fine within two weeks or, to suffer rigorous imprisonment in default".
Thereafter the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge in his revisional jurisdiction pointing out that the order passed was in direct contravention of the mandatory provision of section 345 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions judge declined to take any action on this petition observing "6th June 1953. Heard and considered the facts and grounds. I see no grounds for interference. So this petition in revision is rejected. . In effect compounding of the offence of cheating appears to have been refused".
Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court in the exercise of its Criminal Revisional jurisdiction on the 6th July 1953, and obtained the present Rule. No one has appear ed to support the Rule. No one has appeared in opposition thereto.
It is quite clear that the learned Sessions judge's order of the 12th February 1953, cannot be supported. Subsection (5) of section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
"The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused [with whom the offence has been compounded]".
If the learned Sessions Judge permitted the case to be compromised, then under section 345, clause (6) he had no alternative but to acquit the petitioner and set aside the conviction and sentence. This he failed to do.
If as is suggested by his order of the 6th June 1953, he was refusing to allow the case to be compounded, then he had no alternative but to hear the appeal on its merits and he had no right to say that the compromise was permitted in part merely by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served. This was an order which could only be passed on a hearing of the appeal on its merits ands could not be passed on a supposed partial permission to compromise the appeal.
In these circumstances, this Rule is made absolute and the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated the 12th February 1953, is set aside. The case is allowed to be com pounded and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner set aside.
‑I agree.
K. B. A. Rule made absolute.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer