Judgment :- K. Narayana Kurup, J. Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL.2/9797. It is covered by a regular permit to operate on the route Kottayam - Kollam Civil Station. The Motor Vehicles Inspector attached to the Office of the respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner alleging that on 11.7.1992 he has inspected the vehicle at Thattamala Junction and found that the petitioner's vehicle was carrying a marriage party. In Ext. P1 charge memo, the petitioner was given an option to compound the offence under S.86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by paying a sum of Rs. 500/-. Since there is a specific provision in Ext. P1 for compounding the offence, the petitioner has compounded the same by remitting a sum of Rs. 500/-. 2. The grievance of the petitioner as highlighted before me in this Original Petition is that inspite of the fact mat he has compounded the offence, the respondent has issued Ext. P2 letter to the petitioner directing him to remit the tax at contract carriage rate due for quarter ending 31.9.1992 within 7 days from the date of receipt of Ext. P2 memo. Ext. P2 is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. The State has filed a counter affidavit justifying Ext. P2. Having heard counsel on both sides, I am not satisfied that the stand taken by the respondent can be justified, No doubt, it is true, that the petitioner's vehicle was found carrying a marriage party in breach of the terms and conditions of the permit. But, it has to be noted that the petitioner was given an option to compound the offence under S.86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act by paying a sum of Rs. 500/- Petitioner, having been permitted to compound the offence, I do not think that the respondent will be justified in proceeding against him by Ext. P2 directing him to remit the tax at contract carriage rate due for the quarter ending 31.9.1992. Compounding is generally by way of compromise or agreement and once an offence is compounded, the composition has the same effect in a criminal trial as it would have in the case of a compromise in a Civil Suit. P2 directing him to remit the tax at contract carriage rate due for the quarter ending 31.9.1992. Compounding is generally by way of compromise or agreement and once an offence is compounded, the composition has the same effect in a criminal trial as it would have in the case of a compromise in a Civil Suit. The effect of composition is that it precludes the authority who initially agreed for it from initiating any fresh proceedings against the offender as composition operates as a complete bar to any further proceedings as if the offender had been acquitted. 4. Petitioner has a definite case that he could not arrange the special permit for the trip in question since the trip was arranged only in the evening of 10.7.1992. Petitioner has also brought to my notice the provisions of S.88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act under which special permits are provided on payment of a sum of Rs. 250/-. That apart, S.18 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 permits composition of offence. Thus, on the whole, I am satisfied that the action already taken against the petitioner will meet the ends of justice and no further action is called for against the petitioner. Ext. P2 is therefore, one issued without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. In the result, I allow the Original Petition and quash Ext. P2 letter dt. 31.7.1992 issued by the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.