DHANANJOY DAS Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2007 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 27(3)/2003 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2003 delivered in G.R. No. 1062/2001 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura. By the said judgment dated 02.07.2003, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 353 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer two years' simple imprisonment under Section 353 of the IPC and one year simple imprisonment under Section 323 of the IPC. Though the judgment of conviction has been upheld, but the appellate court has interfered with the sentence in the following terms:

(3.) MR . P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the appellate court, even though the victim and the petitioner had filed a petition for allowing to compound the offence punishable under Section 353 and 323 of the IPC, but no consideration of the said petition dated 03.09.2003 was at all taken by the appellate court while passing the impugned judgment. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that it has been asserted erroneously in the said petition filed under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. that the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC is compoundable, but according to Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the said offence for deterring public servant from discharging his duty by assault or criminal force is not an offence compoundable within the ambit of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has emphatically submitted that the said petition should have been taken into consideration by the appellate court while reconsidering the sentence.