R. CHANDRA, J : - This is an appeal by the State, under Ss. 417 and 423 of the Criminal P. C., against the acquittal of the respondents, on the charge under S. 147, Penal Code. On 8-11-1963, Mahabir Singh lodged the first information report under S. 323 read with S. 506 of the Penal Code. The police after due investigation submitted the charge sheet against the respondents for the offences under Ss. 147, 323 and 506, Penal Code. The Magistrate who tried the case, framed the charges only under Ss. 147 and 323 read with S. 149, Penal Code. No evidence was recorded in the case. The parties filed a compromise, and the Magistrate under his order dated 5th February, 1965, acquitted the accused of both the charges with the following observations:

" . ... The offence under S. 323, Penal Code is compoundable without permission and presents no difficulty.

Regarding the offence under S. 147, Penal Code which is not compoundable parties have been heard at length and it has been argued by the learned defence counsel that in spite of the fact that the offence under S. 147, Penal Code is non-compoundable as the common object of the assembly was to assault Mahabir Singh and that object by virtue of the compounding of the offence under S. 323, Penal Code no more remains an object within the meaning of S.141, Penal Code which defines unlawful assembly and as the offence under S. 147, Penal Code fails the accused are entitled to acquittal.

".....The Patna authority has therefore to be accepted and as because of the compounding of the offence under S. 323, Penal Code, the charge under S.147, Penal Code also fails, it will be a waste of time to proceed with the trial and examine witnesses as the very object of the assembly is not a 'common object' within the meaning of S. 141, Penal Code now and there remains nothing to be tried as regards the accused are concerned. There being no offence in existence in the eye of law the trial cannot proceed in spite of the provisions of S. 251A (7), Criminal P. C."

The present appeal is directed against that order. Its validity was attacked on the ground that only the offence under S. 323, Penal Code, was compoundable, and the Court below erred in acquitting the accused for the offence under S. 147, Penal Code, which was non-compoundable.

2. This appeal came up for hearing before Nigam, J. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on a single Judge decision of this Court, in Ramesh Chandra v. State, 1966 All W R (H C) 606, where the learned Judge stated:

".....Ss. 147 and 148, Penal Code simpliciter are, however, not compoundable, but as they are tacked on in the present case to Ss. 324 and 325, Penal Code under which the accused person's acquittal has been ordered, their conviction under Ss. 147 and 148, Penal Code which had for its common object the committing of the assault on the complainant, cannot be sustained and their acquittal thereunder, has also to be ordered."

Brother Nigam did not agree with that view, and directed that the matter be laid before a Division Bench. So, this appeal has come up for hearing before this Bench. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. We may say at the outset that with respect we also do not agree with the view taken by Takru, J. in 1966 All WR (HC) 606 (supra). Section 345 (1), Criminal P.C. prescribes that the offences thereunder specified may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of the appended table. By sub-s. (2) provision is made for the compounding of the offences specified in the first column of the table appended to this sub-section by certain persons with the permission of the Court, before which, any prosecution for the offence is pending.

Sub-section (6) further lays down :

'The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded."

It is therefore clear that to have the effect of an acquittal the offence compounded must be one specifi