NARAINJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS is an accused's application la revision refusing them to compound an offence punishable under Section 420, Penal Code under the provisions of the law as laid down under Section 345, Criminal P. C. It appears that a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicants on the ground that instead of supplying cocoanut oil to the complainant they cheated him and supplied water and thus put him in the aggregate to a loss of Rs. 5516-6 6. The two Courts below refused to give permission for the compounding of the offence mainly on three grounds?firstly, that the value of the property involved was large, secondly, that the investigation of the case involved great pains and time and, thirdly, the matter was of great public importance. The counsel for the accused-applicants has not been able to point out as to why in a case of this nature permission be given to compound the offence. The allegation of the prosecution is clearly to the effect that all the co-accused were aware as to what was being done. The nature of the case is certainly such wherein no question of granting permission for compounding the offence arises.

(3.) THE application in revision is accordingly dismissed.