2003 (12) TMI 680 - HC - Indian Laws

Agreement to Relieve Imprisonment Sentence with Compounding Power

The respondent agreed to relieve the petitioner of a six-month imprisonment sentence. The petitioner's counsel committed to paying the fine. The court ... Compounding of offence - prohibition on compounding under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. - extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. - continuation of suspension of sentenceContinuation of suspension of sentence - Order suspending sentence to be continued until the next date of hearing. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner, a 60 year old woman, was under an order of suspension of sentence granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara which was due to expire on 31.12.2003. As the matter was not likely to be heard before that date, the High Court ordered that the suspension of sentence be continued until the next date to ensure the petitioner is not prejudiced pending consideration of her petition.Suspension of sentence is continued until the next date.Compounding of offence - prohibition on compounding under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. - extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition seeking relief by compounding of offence (after conviction and with no proceedings pending) requires consideration; no final order on compounding made. - HELD THAT: - Counsel for the petitioner sought relief from the substantive sentence by invoking the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing by analogy to Section 320 Cr.P.C.. The Court recorded that earlier decisions relied upon by the petitioner and a Supreme Court decision were not directly applicable on the facts. It noted that sub section (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. prohibits compounding of offence except as provided by that Section. The Court did not decide the substantive question but observed that the petition therefore required consideration, leaving the question open for determination on the returnable date.The request to be relieved of sentence by compounding is not finally adjudicated and is left for further consideration.Final Conclusion: The Court continued the order suspending sentence until the next date; the substantive prayer for relief by compounding of the offence was noted as requiring further consideration and was not finally determined. Issues:1. Relief from substantive sentence of imprisonment for six months.2. Payment of fine by the petitioner.3. Exercise of extraordinary power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for compounding of offence.4. Suspension of sentence for a lady aged 60.Analysis:1. The respondent, the original complainant, personally present in court, agreed to grant relief to the petitioner by being relieved of the substantive sentence of imprisonment for six months.2. The petitioner's counsel assured that the fine would be paid by the returnable date. It was acknowledged that no pending proceedings existed after the conviction and confirmation by the Additional Sessions Judge, with a Revision Application already dismissed.3. The petitioner's counsel argued for the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to compound the offence, citing relevant case laws. The court noted the prohibition on compounding offences except as provided by Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.4. The petitioner, a 60-year-old lady, had enjoyed suspension of sentence by the Vadodara Sessions Judge. Due to the impending expiration of the suspension order, the court ordered the continuation of the suspension until the next date, considering the circumstances.