STATE Vs. THAMPIKANNU MYTHEEN PICHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An old offender was charged with having committed theft of Rs. 36/- and an LIC. bill from the shirt pocket of one Kesavan at about 6 p.m. on 26-8-1968 from the municipal bus stand, Kottayam where Kesavan had gone to board a bus to Erattupetta. The accused was caught red handed and was taken to the Kottayam West police station. Being an old offender the accused was committed to the sessions. In the sessions court, pw 1 filed a petition praying for the leave of the court to compound the offence stating that the matter was settled between him and the accused and he did not desire to proceed with the case. As the value of the property stolen was only Rs. 36/- the owner of the property can compound the offence with the permission of the court. The court accordingly, accorded sanction and the compromise was recorded and the accused acquitted.

(2.) The point taken in the calendar revision is that even though an offence under S.379 IPC is compoundable, it cannot be so compounded when S.379 is read with S.75. I do not think that this position is correct, because conviction under S.379 read with S.75 is not a conviction for two 'distinct offences'. The conviction is all the same, only under S.379. S.75 is invoked for enhancement of the sentence and that can come only at the time the sentence is to be imposed. The fact that the accused is an old offender is not to be taken note of by the court at the trial. Only at the conclusion of the trial after entering the conviction, that question can be taken up for imposing the sentence. So S.75 cannot give a different colour to the offence under S.379 IPC. This is the view that is seen taken in Queen Emperess .v. Khalak (ILR 11 All. 393) and In re Muthurakka Thevan (30 IC 435). In the case first cited it was held:-