TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies limits of compounding offenses: importance of s. 345(6) CPC</h1> <h3>Biswabahan Das Versus Gopen Chandra Hazarika & Ors</h3> Biswabahan Das Versus Gopen Chandra Hazarika & Ors - 1967 AIR 895, 1967 SCR (1) 447 Issues:1. Quashing of order by High Court based on compounding of an offence.2. Interpretation of s. 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. Comparison of provisions under Assam Forest Regulation and Criminal Procedure Code.4. Jurisdiction of High Court in issuing writ of certiorari.Analysis:The primary issue in this case is the High Court's decision to quash the Board of Revenue's order based on the compounding of an offence by the appellant. The High Court held that once an offence is compounded, the Board cannot consider the conduct of the individual in relation to that offence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the compounding of an offence does not automatically clear the individual's conduct or suitability for other matters, such as obtaining settlement of an excise shop.The interpretation of s. 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code was crucial in this case. The Court clarified that for an offence to be acquitted through compounding, it must fall under the specified categories in sub-sections (1) or (2) of s. 345. The Court emphasized that the effect of compounding is limited to the offences specified in the Code, and cannot be extended to offences under other Acts unless similar provisions exist in those Acts.A detailed comparison was made between the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation and the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court highlighted that while the Assam Regulation allows for the compounding of certain forest offences by accepting compensation, this does not absolve the individual of the suspicion or stigma associated with the offence. The Court emphasized that the mere payment of compensation does not vindicate the character of the accused.The jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari was also a significant aspect of the judgment. The Court reiterated that the purpose of a writ of certiorari is not to act as an appeal, but to ensure that the inferior tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction or deviated from legal requirements. In this case, the Board of Revenue was found to have acted within its legal authority in considering the appellant's conduct, and thus the High Court's decision to quash the order was deemed unjustified.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the decision of the Board of Revenue. The respondent was directed to pay the costs of the appellant, emphasizing the Court's disagreement with the High Court's interpretation and decision in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
