Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD LATIF VS Respondent: THE STATE
1985 P Cr
1985 P Cr. L J 1675
[Lahore]
Before Rustam S. Sidhwa, J
MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No.973 of 1969, decided on 17th March, 1985.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 325/34‑‑Compounding of an offence with one or more accused, held, permissible under law.‑‑[Compromise].
Emperor v. Mohna A I R 1926 Lah. 424 and Anentia and another v. The Crown A I R 1924 Lah. 595 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
---S. 325/34‑‑Accused compromising with injured person‑‑Offence under S. 325/34, P.P.C. permitted to be compound‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside.‑‑[Compromise].
Ghulam Sabir for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 17th March, 1985.
JUDGMENT
This is a revision petition filed by Muhammad Latif, petitioner, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, dated 18‑8‑1969, dismissing his appeal and that of his co‑accused. Earlier, the petitioner and three of his co‑accused were convicted by a First Class Magistrate of Lyallpur under section 325/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.100 each or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that Muhammad Latif, petitioner, compromised the case with Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 and Sher Muhammad P.W.5, who were the two persons to whom he had allegedly inflicted injuries with his stick. Muhammad Naseer P.W.3 was also injured in the case, but he was inflicted a stick blow by Hassan Muhammad, convict. The compromise was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, but the same was rejected on the basis that the compromise application had been filed very late and that he could not permit the case to be compromised partly. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge does not disclose or clarify what is meant by the words that he would not allow the compromise to be effected partly. The compounding of an offence with one or more accused is permissible under the law. If any authority is required for this view, Emperor v. Mohna A I R 1926 Lah. 424 and Anentia and another v. The Crown A I R 1924 Lah. 595 may be referred. Since Muhammad Latif, petitioner, had injured Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 and Sher Muhammad P.W.5, his having compromised the case with these two persons is legal and permissible. In these circumstances, the offence under section 325/34, P.P.C. vis‑a‑vis Muhammad Latif, petitioner, is permitted to be compounded.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Latif, petitioner, under section 325/34, P.P.C. is set aside. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.
M. Y. H. Petition accepted.