( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the common order, dated 1-12-1995 of the assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru in West Godavari District passed in crlm. P. No. 198/95 and Crl. M. P. No. 199/95 on his file refusing permission to the defacto-complainant to enter into compromise with the accused and to record the same in S. C. 89/94 on his file.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under:- the revision-petitioner (A-2) and two others (A-1 and A-3) are being prosecuted for the offence under Section 354, IPC in S. C. No. 89/94 and Marri nagalakshmi is the defacto-complainant and victim in the said case. The prosecution examined witnesses P. Ws. 1,2,4 and 5 in chief on 16-4-1995 and the accused took time for cross-examining the said witnesses. Thereafter, on 24-11-1995, the defacto-complainant Marri Nagalakshmi filed Cr. M. P. No. 198/95 under Section 320 (2), Cr. P. C. seeking permission of the Court to compound the matter with the accused in view of the compromise effected between her and the accused by the village elders. She also filed Crl. M. P. No. 199/95 under Section 320 (8), Cr. P. C. to record the said compromise between her and the accused. But, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the said applications by his common order, on two counts. Firstly, that though the offence under Section 354, IPC is shown as compoundable with the permission of the Court in Section 320 (2), Cr. P. C. in view of the fact that section 354, IPC has been amended by our State fixing the minimum punishment of five years which may extend to seven years in appropriate cases, it does not come under the offence which could be compounded with the permission of the Court. Secondly, that the compromise entered into between the parties is not voluntary in nature and as such, permission cannot be granted under Section 320 (2),. Cr. P. C. Challenging the said order, the 2nd accused has come up with this revision.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner and also the Public prosecutor and perused the impugned order.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner submits in spite of the state amendment for Section 354, IPC fixing the minimum punishment of five years which may extend to seven years in appropriate cases, provision in section 320 (2), Cr. P. C. was not amended and the offence under Section 354, IPC is shown as an offence to be compounded with the permission of the Court at the instance of the woman assaulted and to whom criminal force was used in the commission of the offence and till that provision under Section 320 (2), cr. P. C. is amended, the offence under Section 354,1 PC continues to be a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court at the instance of the victim women in spite of the State amendment for Section 354, IPC. The reasoning given by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in para 9 of his order reads as follows:"in this case, I am of the view that by making the amendment to section 354, IPC and enhancement of the punishment, and fixing a minimum punishment of 5 years which may also extend to 7 years in appropriate cases, the Legislature had took a serious note of atrocities against women and they want to curb such instances of outrage and atrocities against the women, and made the law more deterrent by fixing a minimum punishment of 5 years. The Court is required to give reasons for awarding lesser punishment than 5 years. Perhaps, the Legislature would not have thought of removing Section 354, IPC. by over-sight from the purview of Section 320 (2), Cr. P. C. in their eagerness to bringout a legislation in a hasty manner". This reasoning of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is nothing but perverse. It is not for the Courts to say that the Legislature made the amendment to section 354, IPC in a hasty manner and that by oversight, failed to take out section 354, IPC from the purview of Section 320 (2), Cr. P. C. There are certain other offe