Invalid compounding of a non-compoundable offence cannot sustain an acquittal; revisional correction may follow.

Compounding is permissible only where the offence is legally compoundable, and an acquittal based on compounding of a non-compoundable offence is not in accordance with law. The text states that an offence under section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, founded on contravention of sections 3(2)(a) and 4, was not compoundable with or without permission. It also states that the revisional power could be exercised where acquittal rested on invalid compounding, and that permission to compound was indivisible and could not be sustained for one offence while rejected for another. The High Court's order setting aside the acquittal and directing the trial to proceed was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an acquittal based on compounding could be set aside where one of the offences was not compoundable, and whether the permission to compound could be severed so as to sustain the acquittal in part.

Analysis: The complaint involved offences under the Indian Penal Code and under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. Under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compounding is permissible only where the law allows it. The offence under section 13 of the Maharashtra Act, founded on contravention of sections 3(2)(a) and 4, was not compoundable either with or without permission. An acquittal resting on compounding of such a non-compoundable offence was therefore not in accordance with law. The revisional power of the High Court could be exercised where an acquittal was founded on invalid compounding, and the permission to compound, being indivisible, could not be upheld for one offence and invalidated for the other.

Conclusion: The High Court was right in setting aside the acquittal and directing the trial to proceed, and the challenge to that order failed.

---