Judgment SOBHAGMAL JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, on leave being granted by this Court under section 37m, Cr. P. C. , is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banswara, dated July 18,1986, convicting the accused respondent for the offence under sections 352 and 323, IPC and directing him to be released on probation for the said offences. ( 2 ) THE case relates to the incident which took place on October 18, 1984 at 10. 30 a. m. in Banswara. The prosecution story, in brief, was that on the date of incident Dr. D. A. Panda was on his round in the E. S. I. dispensary when the accused Natwar Singh approached him for a medical certificate. The doctor refused to oblige him and on account of this the accused assaulted him. A report of the occurrence was lodged by the Doctor at Police Station, Banswara, the same day at 12. 00 noon. A case under sections 332 and 352, IPC was registered and investigation started. Upon completion of investigation the accused was challaned in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. He was charged for the offence under sections 332 and 353, IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) AFTER trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated July 18, 1986, acquitted the accused for the offence under section 332, IPC but convicted and sentenced him for the offences under sections 352 and 323, IPC and enlarged him on probation. The State of Rajasthan was not satisfied with the acquittal of the accused under section 332, IPC and has come in appeal in this Court. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal in this Court the accused was arrested and was produced in this Court on September 11, 1987. He is in jail since then. It is now more than 7 months. The accused is un-represented and, therefore, Shri S. N. Trivedi, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to conduct the case on his behalf. ( 5 ) I have heard the Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Trivedi, Amicus Curiae, for the accused respondent. During the pendency of this appeal I am informed that as per the orders of the Sessions Judge in appeal, the accused was accorded permission to compromise the case with the complainant. ( 5 ) I have heard the Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Trivedi, Amicus Curiae, for the accused respondent. During the pendency of this appeal I am informed that as per the orders of the Sessions Judge in appeal, the accused was accorded permission to compromise the case with the complainant. Accordingly the accused entered into a compromise with Dr. Panda, and on that compromise bring accepted, he was acquitted of the offence under sections 352 and 323, IPC. The offence related to the incident which took place on October 18-07-2008 18, 1984. The accused was directed to be released on probation by the learned Magistrate and the bonds were executed as back as 4. 8. 1986. The accused was arrested during the pendency of the appeal in this Court and he is in custody since September 11, 1987. It would not be proper in the circumstances to interfere with the acquittal of the accused under section 332, IPC when he has already compromised the case with Dr. Panda. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.