BERI, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS is an application under sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure made both by the injured as well as the convicted accused praying that Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1967 be reopened and they may be permitted to compound the offence under sec. 324 I. P. C. and the applicant be acquitted. On account of a Panchayat election Mansaram and Mansing became inimical to one another. Mansingh's son Tribhuwan Singh the applicant before me, went to Mansaram, called him from his house and fired a 12 bore pistol hitting his right knee thereby causing multiple lacerated gun shot wounds with inverted margins in an area of 5" x 5". The case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar and he convicted Tribhuwan Singh under sec. 324 I. P. G. and awarded him 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was preferred to this Court and by my judgment dated the 24th February, 1970 I rejected the appeal and maintained the conviction and the sentence. Mansaram and Tribhuwan Singh have jointly applied under sec. 561-A praying that the case be reopened as Tribhuwan Singh's counsel bad not informed him of the date of hearing of appeal and therefore he had not informed his counsel of the compromise reached earlier between the parties. It was after the disposal of the appeal that he came to know that his conviction and sentence were maintained and he has moved this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mukat Beharilal Bhargava relied on Chitawan and others v. Mahboob Ilahi (1) and argued that the inherent power under sec. 561-A to alter or review its previous judgment by a High Court is not affected or limited by any provision contained in the Code including section 369. He submitted that on this basis and in the circumstances mentioned I should exercise my powers under section 561-A and reopen the case and allow the compromise and acquit the applicant. Mr. A. K. Mathur learned Deputy Government Advocate opposes. He submits that this Court is 'functus officio' after having disposed of the appeal in view of a decision in Ramai vs. State (2 ). In R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (3) the principle enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is - "the said section saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There is no doubt that this inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. " The power under sec. 345 in granting permission for the compounding of offences is a specific power under the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to a pending proceeding. In my opinion, this power cannot be exercised under 561-A Cr. P. C. after an appeal has been heard and decided. Sec. 345 (2) speaks of the permission of the Court "before which any prosecution is pending. " Under sec. 345 (5) such leave is to be accorded by the Court "before which appeal is to be heard. " Once the appeal has been disposed the power which this Court had does not survive. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Ramai's case (2 ). The case of Chitawan (1) is clearly distinguishable. It is extremely unlikely that if a compromise had been reached prior to the hearing of appeal by this Court on 24-2-1970 Tribhuwan Singh would not have informed his learned counsel about it in the appeal which was instituted in 1967. I see no force in this application and I dismiss it. .;