Compensation under forest law did not erase misconduct; administrative suitability could still be assessed on the underlying conduct.

Payment of compensation under section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation did not have the same legal effect as compounding under section 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the Regulation only stopped further proceedings and did not declare the misconduct wiped out or treated as an acquittal. The respondent's conduct therefore remained relevant when assessing suitability for settlement, and the Board of Revenue was entitled to take it into account. The Board acted within jurisdiction in doing so, and the High Court had no basis under Article 226 to quash the order, as certiorari does not correct an intra-jurisdictional assessment of relevance or suitability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether payment of compensation under section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 had the same legal effect as compounding of an offence under section 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to wipe out the misconduct and prevent it being relied upon in assessing suitability for settlement. (ii) Whether the Board of Revenue acted within jurisdiction in taking the respondent's conduct into account and whether the High Court could quash that order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether payment of compensation under section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 had the same legal effect as compounding of an offence under section 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to wipe out the misconduct and prevent it being relied upon in assessing suitability for settlement.

Analysis: The legal effect of composition depends on the statute creating the power. Section 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly gives composition the effect of an acquittal, but section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation only authorises acceptance of compensation and provides that no further proceedings shall be taken. That protection stops further prosecution, but it does not expressly declare that the accusation is erased or that the person's conduct is vindicated. In the absence of such a provision, payment of compensation cannot be treated as equivalent to an acquittal or as eliminating the relevance of the conduct for collateral purposes.

Conclusion: The payment of compensation under section 62 did not amount to an acquittal or wipe out the respondent's conduct, and the Board was entitled to consider it against him.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board of Revenue acted within jurisdiction in taking the respondent's conduct into account and whether the High Court could quash that order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Board had power to judge suitability for settlement and could treat past conduct as a relevant factor. Its view that the respondent had shown want of vigilance in obeying the law was within the scope of its authority. Certiorari lies for jurisdictional excess or an error of law apparent on the face of the record, not to correct every alleged error of appreciation. Since the Board neither exceeded its powers nor committed any such apparent error, the High Court had no basis to interfere under Article 226.

Conclusion: The Board acted within jurisdiction, and the High Court was not justified in quashing its order.

Final Conclusion: The settlement order made by the Board of Revenue stood restored, and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute permits acceptance of compensation for an offence but does not expressly provide that such payment operates as an acquittal, the misconduct is not legally obliterated and may be considered for collateral administrative purposes; certiorari does not lie to correct such intra-jurisdictional assessment of relevance or suitability.

---