The revision petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against common judgment made in Crl.A.Nos.91 and 94 of 1999 dated 7.12.2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam confirming conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.116 of 1994 dated 7.7.1999 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam district.

2. The second respondent in the case gave report to Itchapuram Police Station, Srikakulam district basing upon which, the case was registered in Cr.No.47 of 1992 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 326, 324 and 307 IPC against the revision petitioners (A1 to A6) and they were tried accordingly before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta and were found guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324 and 326 IPC and accordingly they were convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and further A1 to A4 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and further A2, A5 and A6 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC each while acquitting them of the charge punishable under Section 307 IPC, whereas consequently, they preferred the Crl.A.Nos.91 and 94 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam which were dismissed confirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court and being aggrieved by that, Crl.R.C.No.2030 of 2004 was filed, which was also dismissed by order dated 28.1.2010 and being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners filed Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 25.10.2010. Now the revision petitioners have filed the present Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1835 of 2011 under Section 482 read with Sec.320 Cr.P.C. to review the matter and to free the revision petitioners by way of compounding the offences.

3. It is the claim of the revision petitioners that all of them and the second respondent are the residents of same village and in order to have cordial relations between them, elders of the village came forward and advised them to settle the matter for the purpose of maintaining peace between them and to end their disputes and accordingly they entered into a compromise to compound the offences and further this Court has got authority to review the matter even subsequent to the dismissal of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and it is also contended that Section 326 IPC is compoundable subject to obtaining necessary permission from the Court.

4. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be reviewed at this stage and then the parties can be permitted to compound the offences.

5. No provision has been shown to the effect that the judgments delivered in criminal cases can be reviewed. Further, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has no application so far as the criminal cases are concerned. Further, under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. certain offences can be compounded without the permission of the court, while under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. certain offences can be compounded with the permission of the Court which does not include Section 326 IPC. In fact, Section 320(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. read as under:

Section 320 Cr.P.C -Compounding of offences

(1) The offences punishable under the sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860, specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

……………………..

…………………………

…………………………

(2) The offenc