Hon'ble KABIR, J.— Leave granted.

2. The appellant in this appeal was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a seven year old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving of his tractor. The appeal from the said order and conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant moved in revision before the High Court. In revision, the Karnataka High Court, while confirming the conviction, set aside the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code but maintained the conviction and sentence in respect of the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of such payment, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.600/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 I.P.C. and in default of such payment to undergo simple imprisonment for a month.

3. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Hassan, and the subsequent orders passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court maintaining the conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A and the sentence in respect of the conviction under Section 304-A, I.P.C.

4. During the hearing of this appeal, at the admission stage, learned counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the matter had been settled between the parties and a compromise petition had been executed between the appellant and the complainant. On such submission, the complainant was impleaded as a party to the present proceedings and the short point which ultimately arose during the hearing is whether the offence u/S. 304-A could at all be compounded since the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 I.P.C.

5. The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, not only in connection with compounding of offences punishable under the criminal justice system, but also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of matrimonial matters in particular, where the Court had to strike a balance between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to the parties. In order to meet certain unusual situations, this Court has from time to time taken recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution, in order to give a quietus to a litigation demanding a pragmatic solution. It has also been consistently held by this Court that when an offence did not come within the ambit of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code but the proceedings taken on the basis thereof deserved to be terminated, a sentence could always be reduced while maintaining the conviction and in most cases the sentence was reduced to the period of the sentence already undergone. In other cases, where circumstances so warranted, even the sentence was altered which at times brought the proceedings within the scope of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code and the offence was allowed to be compounded.

6. In this connection regard may be had to the decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty and another vs. State of Orissa ((1999) 5 SCC 238), which was disposed of by a Three-Judge Bench, wherein in respect of a conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone together with fine. Of course, as mentioned hereinbefore, the said decision was rendered in the facts of the said case.

7. Reference was also made to two other decisions of this Court in i) Ram Lal and another vs. State of J & K ((1999) 2 SCC 213) and ii) Bachhu Singh vs. State of U.P.((2000 (10) SCC 313), wherein the same formula was applied.

8. As far as the other proposition is concerned, reference may be made to the deci