SURINDER SINGH,J - (1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Nirmal Singh son of Bela Singh who was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, under Sections 380 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code. On the former count, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months and a similar sentence was imposed on the second count. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence which was partly accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana who affirmed the conviction on both the counts but reduced the sentence on each count to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine on both the counts was, however, maintained.
(2.) DURING the course of the argument in this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a reference to an affidavit to Charanjit Singh, complainant, which had been annexed with the revision petition. The substance to this affidavit is that the deponent and Nirmal Singh petitioner belong to the same Village and the same brotherhood. They are also distantly related. It is averred that with the intervention of the respectable the deponent had effected a compromise with Nirmal Singh petitioner and hence he (deponent) did not wish to proceed against the latter and that he had no objection if the proceedings against Nirmal Singh are dropped and he is acquitted of the charges against him. With a view to ensure the correctness of that affidavit the statement of Charanjit Singh, complainant, who was in the Court was recorded. The complainant affirmed the correctness of the above affidavit and reiterated that he had no longer any grievance against the petitioner. He prayed that the matter may be permitted to be compounded. Before permission to compound the offence can be granted, it is necessary to see whether the petitioner is guilty of a compoundable offence. As per the decisions of the courts below, the petitioners stands convicted under sections 380 and 451, Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence under section 451, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, the same is compoundable with the permission of the court as provided under section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure. However, the offence under section 380, Indian Penal Code is not included in the Schedules under the aforesaid provison. In regard to the conviction for the offence under section 380. Indian Penal Code the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the conviction on the said count is not sustainable at all. He has referred to the judgments of the courts below, particularly the trial Court which held that the prosecution was unable to prove its case regarding the actual occurrence because Makhan Lal who was the alleged eye-witness did not support the prosecution and the other witness Kulbir Singh was given up as unnecessary. Furthermore, it is also rightly contended that even during the course of the investigation, the article alleged to have been stolen were found lying in the disputed shop itself. It could not, therefore, be said that these articles had been stolen, so as to attract the application of section 380, Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the petitioner under section 380, Indian Penal Code, is therefore, not sustainable and the same is set aside.
(3.) WE are then left with the offence under section 451, Indian Penal Code, in regard to which the parties have entered into a settlement as is apparent from the affidavit filed by Charanjit Singh complainant coupled with his statement on oath made in his Court. The parties are therefore, permitted to compound this offence, as prayed. The conviction of the petitioner under section 451, Indian Penal Code, is also set aside.;