PARIMAL NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order, dated 5.12.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Goalpara in C.A. No.7I 2000. In GR Case No. 403/98 the petitioner Parimal Nath was convicted, under Section 354 IPC and thereafter the criminal appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Goalpara, During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner and the father of the victim girl filed an application seeking permission to compound the offence as the offence is compoundable, as provided under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. The appellate Court, however, by the impugned order refused to grant permission on the ground that the offence is a heinous one and the appellant has been convicted after trial. Clause-4(a) of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

(3.) In this case we find that the compromise petition was filed by a competent person and the application was rejected solely on the ground that the appellant was convicted after full trial.