King, J.

1. The petitioner here is the accused in C.C. No. 406 of 1936 on the file of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate, Shiyali, and the offence which in the complaint he is said to have committed is one under Section 337, Indian Penal Code, which falls under Section 345(2), Criminal Procedure Code, as one compoundable with the permission of the Court. During the trial he produced a receipt said to have been given by the father of the complainant for the sum of Rs. 50, and alleged that the latter had agreed not to prosecute him. It was denied for the prosecution that any such payment was made. The Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate refused to take evidence on this question of fact on the ground that whether it were proved or not, the offence could not be compounded under Section 345(2). In so deciding he followed Naurang Rai v. Kidar Nath I.L.R. (1928) Lah. 400.

2. On revision the learned Sessions Judge of East Tanjore held that this view was wrong, and that in normal circumstances the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate should have followed not Naurang Rai v. Kidar Nath I.L.R. (1928) Lah. 400 but Kumaraswami Chetty v. Kuppuswami Chetty (1918)34MLJ217 . However as it was not the com