JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - The eight Petitioners were prosecuted before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jaipur on charges under Sections 147, 379 and 325, Indian Penal Code, the case against them being that they formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit theft of bamboos from the Bari of the complainant and cause hurt to him, and that in pursuance of the said common object, they cut and removed bamboos from the complainant's Bari in spite of his protest and that at the time of doing so, they caused simple hurt to a Pana Dei (p.w. 4), Dhumali Dei (p.w. 5) and Dhani Jena (p.w. 2) and grievous hurt to Nakhi Jena (p.w. 2). The Petitioners denied having committed the offence. 2. During the pendency of the case in the trial Court and after prosecution witnesses were examined, the parties filed a compromise petition praying the Court to accord permission for compounding the offences with which they were charged. The Court allowed composition only in respect of the offences under Sections 325 and 379, Indian Penal Code, because those alone were compoundable and acquitted the Petitioners of those charges. As the offence u/s 147, Indian Penal Codes not compoundable, the learned Magistrate on considering the evidence on record found that Petitioners guilty of that offence and convicted and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. 3. The only contention advanced by Mr. R. Mohanty, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners is that the offences under Sections 325 and 379, Indian Penal Code having been compounded and the Petitioners acquitted of those offences, the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code automatically fails and,the conviction of the Petitioners on that charge is illegal. In support of this contention he relied on a decision of Naqui Imam, J. of the Patna High Court in Gowdappa Gowda and Others Vs. Tippangowda and Others. In that case the accused persons were being tried for offences under Sections 323, 323/34 and 147, Indian Penal Code. A compromise petition was filed by the parties to compound the offences. The Court gave effect to the compromise so far as it related to the charges under Sections 323 and 323/34. Indian Penal Code and the question arose whether thereby the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code automatically fall through. A compromise petition was filed by the parties to compound the offences. The Court gave effect to the compromise so far as it related to the charges under Sections 323 and 323/34. Indian Penal Code and the question arose whether thereby the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code automatically fall through. The learned Judge was of the view that as the charges under Sections 323 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code fail on account of the compromise, it is obvious that the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code must also fail because of the fact that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to assault. He therefore ordered acquittal of the accused persons also of the charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code. With great respect I am enable to agree with this view. The essence of the offence of Section 147 Indian Penal Code which is in aggravated form of the offence punishable u/s 143, Indian Penal Code is the combination of several persons having the common object to commit an offence and that purpose constitutes itself an offence distinct from the criminal offence which these persons agree and intend to commit. The mere assembly of 5 or more persons would be an unlawful assembly if its common object is to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or any other offence. Being merely a member of such assembly having such common object is punishable. To punish them u/s 143, Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that they should have committed any mischief or criminal trespass or any other offence in pursuance of their common object. The mere fact therefore that the Petitioners are acquitted of the specific charges under Sections 325 and 379, Indian Penal Code which are offences distinct from the one under Sections 143 or 147, Indian Penal Code cannot, in my opinion, ipso facto result in their acquittal of the' charge u/s 143 or Section 147, Indian Penal Code. The compounding of an offence does not mean that the offence has not been committed. It only means that it has been committed, although the victim is willing either to forgive it or to accept Borne form of a solatium as sufficient compensation for what be has suffered. In fact, in a recent decision of the Patna High Court in Deonarain Rai and Others Vs. It only means that it has been committed, although the victim is willing either to forgive it or to accept Borne form of a solatium as sufficient compensation for what be has suffered. In fact, in a recent decision of the Patna High Court in Deonarain Rai and Others Vs. State of Bihar, S.P. Singh J. did not follow the view expressed by Naqui Imam, J. in the earlier Patna case. The Rajasthan High Court in State Vs. Mohan and Others, also took the view that where in a case the common object of the unlawful assembly is to commit an offence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and also the members of the unlawful assembly caused hurt in pursuance of the common object of such an assembly and the parties compromise the offence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code such a compromise will not ipso facto embrace the offence u/s 147, Indian Penal Code as well. Similar views were expressed by the Madras High Court in Mathi Venkanna and Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1923 Mad. 592 and by the Punjab High Court in the Grown v. Muhammad Hussain and Ors. AIR 1950 Lah. 121. I am, there fore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mohanty that the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 147, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed