Khaja Nayeemuddein Vs. State of A.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1307 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1307 of 2000)
Petitioner: Khaja Nayeemuddein
Respondent: State of A.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1307 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1307 of 2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 20, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 320 with Penal Code, 1860 – Section 338 – Compounding of offence – Accused an employee of SRTC – Victim coming to terms at SLP stage – Compounding without permission – Permissibility. Held that the offence is compoundable with per-mission of Court. Considering the status, permission granted and accused acquitted.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant stands convicted under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 500/-. His conviction and sen-tence were confirmed in appeal and High Court dismissed his revision against which this appeal has been filed by special leave.
3. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition Appellant had come to terms with the victim of the accident (PW.2) and thereupon a petition has been filed for permission of the Court to compound the offence. We issued notice to PW. 2 Mohd. Ezaz. Today, Mr. Abhijit Sen Gupta entered appearance for him and sub-mitted that as a matter of fact the Appellant and PW.2 have come to terms regarding the offence and so permission is sought for compounding it.
3. Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable of-fence with the permission of the Court as can be seen from the second table given to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that the Appellant is an em-ployee attached to Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and the consequences of the conviction will be detrimental to his career, we persuade ourselves to accord permission for compound-ing the offence. In the result, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him and acquit him under Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal is disposed of accord-ingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant stands convicted under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 500/-. His conviction and sen-tence were confirmed in appeal and High Court dismissed his revision against which this appeal has been filed by special leave.
3. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition Appellant had come to terms with the victim of the accident (PW.2) and thereupon a petition has been filed for permission of the Court to compound the offence. We issued notice to PW. 2 Mohd. Ezaz. Today, Mr. Abhijit Sen Gupta entered appearance for him and sub-mitted that as a matter of fact the Appellant and PW.2 have come to terms regarding the offence and so permission is sought for compounding it.
3. Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable of-fence with the permission of the Court as can be seen from the second table given to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that the Appellant is an em-ployee attached to Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and the consequences of the conviction will be detrimental to his career, we persuade ourselves to accord permission for compound-ing the offence. In the result, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him and acquit him under Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal is disposed of accord-ingly.
