ORDER P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is directed against the order, dated 5.12.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Goalpara in C.A. No. 7/2000. In GR Case No. 403/98 the Petitioner Parimal Nath was convicted, under Section 354 IPC and thereafter the criminal appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Goalpara, During the pendency of the appeal the Petitioner and the father of the victim girl filed an application seeking permission to compound the offence as the offence is compoundable, as provided under Section 320(2) Code of Criminal Procedure The appellate Court, however, by the impugned order refused to grant permission on the ground that the offence is a heinous one and the Appellant has been convicted after trial. Clause-4(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: (4)(a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this Section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court, compound such offence. 3. In this case we find that the compromise petition was filed by a competent person and the application was rejected solely on the ground that the Appellant was convicted after full trial. 4. The law is well settled that an offence can be compounded during the pendency of the appeal or even during the pendency of the revision as provided under Clause (5) and (6) of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure We find no justified reason for refusing the compromise petition for compounding the offence that is good for the society. 5. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside. We do not propose to remand the matter back to the appellate authority. Compromise petition is accepted and the accused person stands acquitted. 6. The criminal, appeal pending before the Sessions Judge stands disposed of. Criminal appeal disposed of.