STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. HUKUMSINGH RAMPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions have been referred to this Full Bench by a Division bench of this Court by order, dated 3-3-1966:- (1) Does an order of acquittal under Section 345 (6), Criminal Procedure code, passed on an application for leave to compound an offence under section 323, Penal Code of which the accused was convicted by the trial court, bar a State appeal against his acquittal of the offence under section 307 of the Penal Code, even when such order under Section 345 (6), Criminal Procedure Code, was passed without notice to the State? (2) Does such an order of acquittal bar a State appeal from his acquittal under Sections 148 and 149, Penal Code? (3) Does such an order of acquittal bar a State appeal from an order of acquittal of a co-accused under Sections 307, 325, 324, 148 and 149, penal Code? If so, to what extent?

(2.) THE said questions arose under the following circumstances: In Sessions Trial no. 90 of 1964 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, 10 persons in all by name Hukumsingh, Mehtab, Lalsingh, Moharsingh, Halku, Raghuwarprasad, laxman, Ramnarayan, Balaprasad and Shivcharan were prosecuted for alleged offences under Sections 307, 325, 324, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code in connection with an incident that took place on 13-10-1963 when the accused were said to have committed the said offences. The trial Judge acquitted the other 6 accused and found Hukumsingh, Moharsingh, Halku and Mehtab guilty of the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(3.) HUKUMSINGH and 3 others who had been convicted by the trial Judge filed criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1965 in the High Court. According to the High Court rules, that appeal went before a Single Bench. In that appeal, an application was made for composition of the offence under Section 323, I. P. C. and by order, dated 16-2-1965, permission was granted to compound the offence and consequently, those 4 accused were acquitted under Section 345 (6), Criminal Procedure Code. In that case although notice had been ordered to be issued to the State, the order in question came to be passed before the interim, date fixed by the office for appearance of the other side i. e. 23-2-1965. Thus, the State had no opportunity to put in appearance in that case as the offence had already been allowed to be compounded on 16-2-1965. It is pertinent to note that the application did not bear the signatures of the victims who might have been considered to be complainants, nor it was made on their behalf, nor had anybody signed on their behalf. However, it appears as per the order of the learned Single Judge that complainants had appeared before him.