' This revision has been filed in the following circumstance. Respondents 2 to 6 were convicted by Magistrate Section 30, Kharian, District Gujrat under section 307 read with section 149 and section 148, P. P. C. Talib co-accused was acquitted. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of Session. During the pendency of that appeal, the parties compounded the matter between themselves and Nizam Din, respondent paid Rs, 500 as compensation to Ghulam Nabi and also tendered apology. After recording the statements of the parties, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the matter to be compromised and accepted the appeal by his order dated t1-2-1974. A revision tiled before the learned Sessions Judge by Zaman, complainant in the case, for enhancement of the sentence was also simultaneously rejected by the same judgment.
2. Ghulam Nabi has called in question that judgment by filing this revision on the ground that the offences not being compoundable, the appeal should not have been accepted on the basis of a compromise. The impugned judgment is patently against the law. The offences not being compoundable, the parties should not have been permitted to compound it. The conduct of the petitioner in having accepted the compensation money does not cure the illegality of the judgment. 1, therefore, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction set aside the impugned judgment and direct that the appeal of the respondents and the revision application filed by Zeman complainant, disposed of on merits by the Sessions Court.