JUDGMENT : R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the first and the second accused in the case C.C. No. 419/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Perumbavoor. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 9 and 39 read with 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 25.11.2014, the first accused hunted and killed a wild pig and used its meat and that he gave a portion of the meat to the second accused and that both accused kept the meat in their possession. 4. The petitioners filed Exts.P2 and P3 applications under Section 54 of the Act before the second respondent for compounding the offences allegedly committed by them. As per Ext.P4 communication dated 26.02.2019, the second respondent gave intimation to the petitioners that the offences cannot be compounded for the reason that the case against the petitioners was pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalady as C.C. No. 419/2016. 5. This writ petition is filed challenging the decision taken by the second respondent on Exts.P2 and P3 applications and communicated to the petitioners as per Ext.P4. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was not legal and proper for the second respondent to refuse to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for compounding on the ground that the case against them was pending before the court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that pendency of the case before the court is not a sufficient ground for rejecting the application for compounding of the offence. 8. Section 54 of the Act deals with compounding of offences. Section 54 reads as follows: “54. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that pendency of the case before the court is not a sufficient ground for rejecting the application for compounding of the offence. 8. Section 54 of the Act deals with compounding of offences. Section 54 reads as follows: “54. Power to compound offences - (1) The Central Government may, by notification, empower the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer not below the rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation and in the case of a State Government in the similar manner, empower the Chief Wild Life Warden or any officer of a rank not below the rank of a Deputy Conservator of Forests, to accept from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offence against this Act, payment of a sum of money by way of composition of the offence which such person is suspected to have committed. (2) On payment of such sum of money to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person. (3) The officer compounding any offence may order the cancellation of any licence or permit granted under this Act to the offence, or if not empowered to do so, may approach an officer so empowered, for the cancellation of such licence or permit. (4) The sum of money accepted or agreed to be accepted as composition under sub-section (1) shall, in no case, exceed the sum of twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that no offence, for which a minimum period of imprisonment has been prescribed in section 51, shall be compounded.” 9. The proviso to Section 54 of the Act states that, no offence, for which a minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed in Section 51 of the Act, shall be compounded. This is the only prohibition imposed under the Act against compounding of an offence under the Act. 10. Wild pig is the animal involved in this case. It is not an animal specified in Schedule I or Schedule II of the Act. It is an animal specified as item No. 19 in Schedule III of the Act. No minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners in respect of that animal. 11. Wild pig is the animal involved in this case. It is not an animal specified in Schedule I or Schedule II of the Act. It is an animal specified as item No. 19 in Schedule III of the Act. No minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners in respect of that animal. 11. Ext.P4 reveals that the second respondent refused to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for compounding only on the ground that the case against the petitioners was pending in the court. Section 54(2) of the Act provides that, on payment of money to the empowered officer on compounding the offence, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person. The expression “if in custody, shall be discharged” in Section 54(2) of the Act indicates pendency of case in a criminal court for the offence committed. It means that the empowered officer can compound the offence against an accused person, even when the criminal case is pending in the court. 12. In Mathew vs. State of Kerala, 2011 (2) KHC 831 : 2011 (3) KLT 1 , while dealing with similar provision contained in the Kerala Forest Act, this Court has held that the expression ''if in custody, shall be discharged'' specifically indicates pendency of the case in court when such composition is made. 13. It follows that pendency of the case in the court is not a sufficient ground to reject an application filed under Section 54 of the Act for compounding of an offence under the Act. 14. The power to compound an offence committed against the Act is certainly a discretionary power. The discretion has to be judicially exercised. It goes without saying that when the discretionary power is conferred, the same has to be exercised in a judicial manner after recording of reasons by the concerned officer as to why the compounding was necessary to be done. State of Jharkhand vs. Govind Singh, AIR 2005 SC 294 . 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, Ext.P4 is liable to be quashed. The second respondent has to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications filed by the petitioners afresh. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. State of Jharkhand vs. Govind Singh, AIR 2005 SC 294 . 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, Ext.P4 is liable to be quashed. The second respondent has to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications filed by the petitioners afresh. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Exts.P2 and P3 applications afresh within a period of one month from producing a certified copy of this judgment before him.