ORDER, 1. These appeals were taken up for hearing yesterday and Ms T. Anamika, learned counsel appearing On behalf of the appellant, who is nobody else than the son of the deceased, argued the case but hearing Could not be concluded. Today, when the matter was called Out learned counsel stated that she has received instructions from the client not to press the appeals as the parties have compromised. 2. Learned, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as the parties have settled their disputes and grievances and good relationship has been restored between them, it would be just and expedient to grant the prayer made on behalf of the appellant. In our view submissions have been made only to be rejected as compounding is permissible only in relation to cases enumerated under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not the present nature. 3. The present case relates to brutal murder: So far we have heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are tentatively of the view that it was not at all a case for acquittal. In view of this, for the present, it is not possible to permit the appellant to, withdraw the appeal which would amount to permit the prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution and it is well settled that the same is not an empty formality in the facts and circumstances, of the case we propose to go on with further hearing of the appeals and examine thoroughly the evidence adduced for coming to final conclusion as to whether it was a case for acquittal or the High Court should have recorded conviction of the respondent. Only thereafter we shall pass final order upon the prayer for a withdrawal. 4. At this juncture learned counsel for the respondent made a prayer for adjournment of case for two weeks to enable him to file additional paper-book incorporating therein necessary papers for consideration by this Court. We think the prayer is reasonable and must be granted. Put this case for further hearing on 22-8-2003 as a part-heard. Court Masters