Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
Nallajerla Murali Krishna @ Murali
Versus
The State of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor & Another
CRL.P. No. 9567 of 2014
Decided on : 09-10-2014
Amendment Acts1991 - Indian Panel Code - Section 354 - Constitution of India,1950 -Articles 246(2), 251 and 254 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 190 – Quash of Criminal Procedure - Criminal Law Amendment - Non-compoundable offence - Criminal petition is filed Criminal Procedure Code by petitioner-accused seeking a direction to Special Sessions Judge for cases Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge to permit him to compound offence in Criminal Appeal - Petitioner is accused and respondent is de facto complainant - Crime was registered for offence punishable IPC against him on the report of victims father - Police after investigation filed charge sheet and same was taken cognizance - Committal Magistrate by allotting and after compliance with provisions of committed to Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge taken cognizance and allotted - After completion of the trial Assistant Sessions Judge judgment convicted the accused for the offence sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine - Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred which is pending on file of Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge – Held, Expressions of Apex Court say Article of Constitution of India is a protection to accused of a crime from commission of alleged offence till end of trial and during pendency of list - Any beneficial legislation can be extended to accused - Conviction and sentence of accused in a criminal proceedings exposit facto law is prohibited as sentence that to be imposable is for the act done and on date of commission of offence but sentence imposable is on completion of trial - This constitutional guarantee applicable is thus only in respect of substitute law for conviction and sentence and it does not extend to mere procedural law and change in rules of evidence and like since there is no guarantee that parties have a right to be tried by a particular Court or particular procedural law - However it is not unconstitutional where law provides for a minimum penalty than which would have been inflicted law at time when offence was committed by taking into consideration of subsequent legislation to benefit accused - Court can impose lesser sentence provided by subsequent legislation which came into force after commission of offence - Petition dismissed (Para 10)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The offence under Section 354 IPC was originally classified as bailable, cognizable, and triable by any Magistrate, with a punishment of up to two years or fine or both (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Amendments introduced by the State of Andhra Pradesh increased the minimum and maximum sentences, made the offence non-bailable, and triable only by the Court of Sessions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Subsequent Central legislation further amended the classification, making the offence non-bailable, with increased minimum and maximum sentences, and triable by a Magistrate, leading to a conflict between State and Central laws regarding the court of trial and bail status (!) (!) (!) .
In cases of inconsistency between State and Central laws, the later Central legislation, which received the President’s assent, prevails, implying implied repeal of the earlier State amendments (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The constitutional provisions regarding the supremacy of Central law over State law in cases of conflict are reinforced, especially considering the provisions of Articles 254, 246(2), and 251 of the Constitution of India (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that the applicable law at the time of the offence's commission determines the maximum punishment and trial procedure, and subsequent beneficial legislation can be extended to the accused (!) .
The principle of non-retroactivity of harsher punishments and procedural laws applies, but beneficial laws that reduce penalties or allow for compounding can be applied even after the offence was committed (!) (!) .
The court has the authority to allow the compounding of offences even if the law initially classified the offence as non-compoundable, especially when subsequent legislation makes it so, and the appellate court should consider such applications rather than dismiss them (!) (!) .
The petitioner and the de facto complainant, having entered into a compromise, are entitled to seek permission to compound the offence, and the appellate court is directed to entertain fresh applications for compoundability (!) .
Overall, the legal framework supports the extension of beneficial amendments to the accused, even if the offence was initially non-compoundable, provided the subsequent law permits such compounding, and the trial court's discretion should favor this approach (!) (!) .
If you need further clarification or assistance with specific legal procedures related to this case, please let me know.
This matter involves to decide whether Section 354 IPC (after Criminal Law Amendment Act, 13 of 2013 which came into force) with effect from 03.02.2013 with consequential amendment in the Schedule-I Cr.P.C. is still a non-compoundable offence and triable by Court of Sessions and whether the parties are entitled to the benefit to the compounding of crimes occurred the time prior to the amendment came into force, from any conflict without reconcilibility between the earlier A.P. State Amendment made with assent of President and the subsequent Central Legislation (supra) with reference to Articles 246(2), 251 and 254 of the Constitution of India. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused, seeking a direction to the learned Special Sessions Judge for cases under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam to permit him to compound the offence in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2013.
2. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The Crime No.30 of 2012 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC against him on the report of the victims father. The police after investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. by the learned Committal Magistrate, by allotting P.R.C.No.16 of 2012 and after compliance with the provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge taken cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and allotted S.C.No.74 of 2013. After completion of the trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, vide judgment, dated 22.07.2013, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC, sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.94 of 2013, which is pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Offences, Khammam. It appears that the petitioner and the de facto complainant entered into compromise and filed two applications under Section 320 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Appellate Court to accord permission to compound the offence. These two applications on the even date i.e., on 11.06.2014 were returned, with an observation that the offence under Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable (as per the A.P. (Amendment) Acts, 6 of 1991 and 3 of 1992). It is impugning the same and by seeking permission to compound the present petition is filed.
3. No doubt, Section 354 IPC originally as it stands is provided with punishment up to two years or with fine. From the subjects under the concurrent list the A.P. State brought Amendments as per the Seventh Schedule List III, Items 1 and 2 read with Article 246(2) of the Constitution with assent of the Honble President of India viz., (I) by the Act 6 of 1991 to Section 354 IPC with effect from 01.04.1991 by enhancing the sentence for a term not exceeding five years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine, and but for adequate reasons to mention in the judgment to impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years but which shall not be less than two years and (II) also in the Schedule-I Cr.P.C. by the Amendment Act 3 of 1992 with effect from 15.12.1992 making the amended Section 354 IPC as a cognizable offence, non-bailable offence and as triable by the Court of Sessions besides non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., if any.
4. Section 354 IPC originally including under Schedule-I of the Cr.P.C. cognizable and even bailable that was triable by any Magistrate and also compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In fact, after the State Amendments (supra), there is the Central Legislation (referred supra) covered
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
