JUDGMENT : P.D. Rajan, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred by A1 and A2 against the judgment in S.C. No.41/1997 of Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Pathanamthitta. A1 and A2 were charge sheeted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Pathanamthitta under section 324, 323 and 307 r/w.34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under section 323 and 324 IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months under section 323 r/w.34 IPC. They were also sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months under section 324 r/w.34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the victim. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this revision petition. 2. The charge against the accused is that on 6.1.1996 at 8.45 a.m., while PW1 was returning his rubber estate through the pathway at Vellara in Malayalapuzha Panchayat, A1 and A2 in furtherance of their common intention and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1. There was a property dispute between the appellants and PW1 earlier. A1 inflicted cut injury on the head, left shoulder, right knee and right shin of PW1, the 2nd accused hit PW1 with a stone. When PW1 took shelter in the neighbouring house, the accused followed him and again voluntarily caused hurt, thereby committed the offence. Against that, the injured preferred another complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta under section 323, 324 and 307 r/w.34 IPC, which was also committed as CP No.1/97 and numbered as C.C. NO.40/97. Both cases were tried by the trial Court jointly and evidence recorded together. In S.C NO.41/97, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P9. In S.C. No.40/1997, prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts.P1 to P3. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. In S.C. NO.41/97 D1 and D2 were marked as defence evidence. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused in S.C. No.40/1997 under section 323, 324 and 307 r/w/34 IPC and convicted the accused in. S.C. No.41/1997 under section 323 and 324 r/w. 34 IPC. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court and filed Crl. M.A. No.6923/2015. S.C. No.41/1997 under section 323 and 324 r/w. 34 IPC. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court and filed Crl. M.A. No.6923/2015. Both parties have signed in the compromise petition. The first appellant died during the pendency of this appeal. The legal representatives of the first appellant were not impleaded and they are not interested in prosecuting the matter. According to Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C, offences punishable under IPC specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column of that table. According to Section 320(2) Cr.P.C, offences punishable under IPC specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be with permission of the court, before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column of that table. 4. When offences are compoundable and the case is committed for trial or the accused is convicted and appeal is pending, the compounding can be allowed with leave of the court. According to Section 320(6) Cr.P.C, High Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence with such person who is competent to compound under this section. The same principle provided under Section 320(6) is applicable to parties when they approach the revisional court to compound a case. Considering the circumstances of the case, permission is granted, provided where the aggrieved party is actually before court and has given his consent. This view has been expressed by Patna High Court in Gurunarayan das v. King Emperor (AIR 1948 Patna 58) and Calcutta High Court in Baburali Sardar and others v. Kala Chand Bepari and others (AIR 1939 Cal 728). When composition of an offence is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The incident had happened on 6.1.1996. The offence under section 323 and 324 IPC are compoundable under the 1st schedule of Section 320 Cr.P.C. When parties are settling the matter, this Court has no objection in allowing the compounding petition. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under section 323 and 324 r/w.34 IPC are set aside. The offence under section 323 and 324 IPC are compoundable under the 1st schedule of Section 320 Cr.P.C. When parties are settling the matter, this Court has no objection in allowing the compounding petition. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under section 323 and 324 r/w.34 IPC are set aside. Since the 1st appellant died, the case against A1 is abated. The 2nd appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.