JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal, filed by the State, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the acquittal of the respondents, after permission to file an appeal against the acquittal having been granted by this Court. ( 2. ) BECAUSE the respondents were prosecuted for the offence under section 4 read with section 7 of the Civil Rights Protection Act, 1955, as amended in 1976, the learned Magistrate accepted an application for compounding of the offences and acquitted the respondents of those charges. ( 3. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the State contended that section 15 of the aforesaid Act has now been amended and the sub-clause of section 15 permitting compounding of the offences has now been deleted and in this view of the matter and in view of sub-section (9) of section 320 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the offences cannot now be compounded. ( 4. ) SECTION 15 as it now stands after the amendment by the Act No. 106 of 1976, which was brought into force from 19-11-1976, reads thus:- "s. 15. Offences to be cognizable and triable summarily. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and every such offence, except where it is punishable with imprisonment for a minimum term exceeding three months, may be tried summarily by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or in metropolitan area by a Metropolitan Magistrate in accordance with the procedure specified in the said Code. ** ** **" ( 5. ) IT is no doubt true that before the amendment in the year 1976, the said section 15 provided that such offences were compoundable with the permission of the Court, as clause (b) of section 15 as it stood originally read -"every such offence may with the permission of the court be compounded. " but section 15 as it now stands, does not contain this clause which has been deleted. It is, therefore, clear that section 15 does not provide any more that the offences aforesaid are compoundable. There is no other provision in this act also making the offence compoundable. Section 320 of the Code of criminal Procedure, sub-section (9) reads:-" (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. It is, therefore, clear that section 15 does not provide any more that the offences aforesaid are compoundable. There is no other provision in this act also making the offence compoundable. Section 320 of the Code of criminal Procedure, sub-section (9) reads:-" (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. " it is, therefore, evident that an offence under this Act cannot be compounded unless it falls within the scope of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 320 of the Code provides for offences punishable under the indian Penal Code and which are compoundable with the permission of the court or without permission. It is, therefore, plain that under the Code of criminal Procedure, an offence cannot be said to be compoundable unless it is specifically so provided or that it is an offence covered by the provisions of section 320 of the Code. Obviously, therefore, an offence under the Civil rights Protection Act, 1955 will not be an offence covered under section 320 of the Code and if the offence is to be made compoundable, special provisions will have to be made and because of this, originally in this section. 1. 5, there was a clause as noted above, which had made the offence compoundable with the permission of the Court. It appears that the Legislature thought that the offence should not be made compoundable, and hence when the Act was amended in the year 1976 and this section was re-enacted, the clause making the offence compoundable was deleted. ( 6. ) FROM the above, it is clear that on the date on which this offence is alleged to have been committed, i. e. on 6-6-1980, and the date on which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents, i. e. on I-I2-1980, there was no provision which could permit the compounding of this offence with the permission of the Court or otherwise. ( 7. ) IT is, therefore, clear that the learned trial Court, under a misapprehension of law, permitted the compounding of the offences, and acquitted the respondents. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not notice the amended provisions of the Act and proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of the provisions as they stood prior to the amendment effected in 1976. In such circumstances, the acquittal of the respondents could not be maintained. ( 8. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not notice the amended provisions of the Act and proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of the provisions as they stood prior to the amendment effected in 1976. In such circumstances, the acquittal of the respondents could not be maintained. ( 8. ) THE appeal is, accordingly allowed, and the acquittal of both the respondents is hereby set aside and since the case is yet to be tried, it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with the law and dispose it of. The respondents are directed to remain present in the Court of the learned Magistrate, First Class, Jatarra, District tikamgarh, on the 1st March, 1982. Appeal allowed: Acquittal set aside.