JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 13-7-1973 upholding the conviction of the applicant for the offence u/s 379 IPC. 2. According to the case of the prosecution the complainant Ranjit Singh (PW 1) left his cycle at the gate of his house in the Gandhi Colony at about 2 P.M. on 13-5-1971 and went inside the house and when he came back from his house after two or three minutes, he found the applicant taking away the cycle. He raised an alarm and chased the accused. The applicant was thereafter caught with cycle. After investigation the applicant was prosecuted for the offence u/s 379 IPC. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty but the Magistrate found that the evidence brought by the prosecution established the offence against the applicant and on that basis he convicted and sentenced the applicant to one year's R. I. In revision his conviction and sentence were maintained. Hence this second revision. 4. Counsel appearing for the applicant urged that the complainant and the applicant filed an application for compromise before the Magistrate but that application was arbitrarily rejected by the Magistrate on unjustifiable grounds, therefore, the judgment of the Magistrate as well as that of the appellate Court are liable to be set aside. It appears that an application was filed by the parties on 12th July, 1972 before the Magistrate for compounding the case but this application was rejected with the following observations : Heard. The case is one of cycle theft and the application is opposed by the APP. I do not think it proper to allow compromise in this case. Rejected. Normally, I would not have interfered with the discretion of the trial Court in this matter but taking into account the fact that the applicant was a young boy of 18 years of age at the time of the offence and also the circumstances that it may not be of any use to send him to jail, I think it appropriate to grant the permission to the parties to compromise the case. As a matter of fact, the Magistrate did not take into account the relevant considerations while rejecting this application. Accordingly the permission sought for is granted and the parties are permitted to compound their offence. 5. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. As a matter of fact, the Magistrate did not take into account the relevant considerations while rejecting this application. Accordingly the permission sought for is granted and the parties are permitted to compound their offence. 5. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The applicant is acquitted of the charge u/s 379 IPC. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.