The main legal point established in the judgment is that the effect of compounding an offence and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions are crucial in determining the justification of quashing an appellate order.

Judgment

MITTER, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated January 24, 1964 passed in Civil Rule No. 208 of 1964 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court was right in quashing the order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that the very basis on which the appellate order of the Board was founded did not exist and that the Board had gone wrong in taking into consideration the compounding of an offence under the Forest Regulation by the petitioner before the High Court as affecting his suitability in getting settlement of an excise shop in Dibrugarh area.

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. One Biswabahan Das, the appellant before us, was the lessee of the said shop from 1956 to l962. The shop was settled with him again for the term l962-64 by the Deputy Commissioner. On appeal to the Board of Revenue, this was set aside on the basis of a report submitted by the Inspector of Excise and the shop was settled with the present respondent. Biswabahan went to the Assam High Court with a writ petition and succeeded there on the ground that the evidence of the Inspector had been taken behind his back and as such should not have been taken into consideration, but the High Court also held in that matter that no useful purpose would be served by granting any relief to Biswabahan at that late stage when the period of the licence was about to expire. This had the result that Hazarika remained the lessee of the shop when a fresh settlement became due. The Deputy Commissioner settled the shop with Hazarika again for the years 1964 to 1967. This settlement was challenged in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board went into the question as to whether Hazarika was a suitable person because as the holder of a firewood mahal licencee he had compounded an offence of illegally felling green trees by paying Rs. 50 when he was acting as a forest contractor. From the appellate order of the Board of Revenue which was quashed by the High Court, it appears that a Forest Beat Officer of Dibru Reserve had detected that Hazarika had illegally felled some green trees and converted them into firewood although under the agreement between him and the authorities he was only entitled to cut and collect firewood from dead and fallen trees. There was no dispute that Hazarika had paid compensation of Rs. 50 in respect thereof and had filed an affidavit before the Board of Revenue that a mistake had been committed by his labourers in collecting some broken and fallen green trees in his absence. The Board was not satisfied with this explanation and took the view that the fact of Hazarika having compounded the offence did not clear his conduct although he had succeeded in getting a subsequent settlement of a forest mahal. It was observed by the Board,

"forest mahals and excise shops are settled under different sets of rules and the fact that the respondent (Hazarika) was considered suitable for one would not automatically entitle him to the other. In the matter of settlement of excise shops, the settling authority is entitled under Executive Instruction III to take other factors under consideration including the moral character of the tenderer in determining his suitability. This Board has consistently held that conduct of a tenderer is a valid consideration in this context. In view of his conduct as discussed above we do not consider respondent (Hazarika) to be a suitable candidate and are unable to uphold the settlement made with him."

4. The High Court relied on S. 345 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code to reach the conclusion that the compounding of the offence had the effect of an acquittal with the result that once the offence was compounded the Board was not entitled to take into account the propriety or otherwise of the conduct of Hazarika in respect of the offence with which he had