1989 PLP 1517 (MLD)
MAHESH CHAND and another — Petitioners Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent.
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1517 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench Members | B.C. Ray and K. Jagannatha Shelly, JJ |
| Parties | MAHESH CHAND and another — Petitioners Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent. |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1517 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1517 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India bench comprising: B.C. Ray and K. Jagannatha Shelly, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1517 (MLD) (MAHESH CHAND and another — Petitioners Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 307--Compounding of offence--Accused acquitted by trial Court but were convicted by High Court--Offence not compoundable under law but parties praying before Supreme Court to treat it as a special case--One of accused a lawyer practising in lower Courts--Counter-case arising out of same transaction already compromised--Held, it Would be proper that Trial Court should permit the parties to compound offence.--[Compromise]. (1987) 2 JT 361 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(1987) 2 JT 361 ref. In this special leave petition challenging the validity of the conviction under section 307, I. P. C., the parties want to have the offence compounded. They have come to terms. They want this Court to permit them to compound the offence.
2. The accused were acquitted by the trial Court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under section 307, I. P. C. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practising in the lower Court. There was a counter-case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court in Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 2 JT 361, has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence.
3. We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial Court shall permit them to compound the offence.
4. We, therefore, direct the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence, after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon. The connected papers filed in this connection before this Court be transmitted to the trial Court for the purpose. The parties, if they want may file additional documents.
5. In the meantime the petitioners be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Judge (Additional Sessions Judge, Baran).
6. Special leave petition is accordingly disposed of. M. B. A./27/F. C. Order accordingly.