HARICHANDRAN PAGADAI Vs. THANGASWAMI NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Magistrate acquitting the respondent of offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. After the complaint was registered and the accused appeared in the Court on the 2nd May, 1947, the complainant filed a petition in Court stating that he had compromised the matter relating to the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and that with regard to the offence tinder Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act he has no witnesses to prove his complaint. The petition was adjourned to some later date and on that adjourned date the complainant resiled from his previous petition and wanted to proceed with the case. The learned Judge found that the complainant had compounded the case so far as the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, and had withdrawn the case under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code so far as the offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act was concerned.

(2.) In revision Mr. Somasundaram contends that Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act is not one of the offences mentioned in Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that such an offence cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court. I agree with that contention because Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act is not one of those sections mentioned in Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the question of compounding the case under Section 24 does not exist any longer. The complaint under Section 323 was rightly compounded.

(3.) With regard to the offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, I am inclined to treat his application as one by which the matter had already been withdrawn. When a litigant files an application in Court stating that he has withdrawn his complaint against his opposite party and for some reason or other the Court is not able to pass orders immediately, it is not open to that litigant later on to come forward and plead that he has changed his mind and that the previous petition should not be acted upon. Therefore the petition dated 2nd May, 1947, should be deemed to be one made under Section 24.8 of the Criminal Procedure Code by which the charge under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act was withdrawn by the petitioner for which the Court, after being satisfied that it is a fit case for withdrawal, gave permission.