U.C. BANERJEE, J.

(1) While it is true that the question of compounding an otherwise non-compoundable offence is not permissible by reason of the requirements of the statute, excepting those offences which stand recognized to be so compoundable in the statute. The genesis of the situation has prompted this Court earlier on more occasions than one to allow compounding of such offences. Presently, the matter relates to a proceeding under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code arising against a committal order dated 27.06.1977. The court of sessions found the accused guilty and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2) On appeal, however, a compromise petition was filed and the High Court having regard to the fact situation of the matter in issue thought it prudent to sentence the accused person as to the period already undergone by him. The High Court in support of its reasoning therefor, however records the compromise entered into between the parties and it is on that basis, passed an order, as above.

(3) The state is in appeal against such an order. The learned advocate appearing for the state has been rather emphatic on his submission that this matter ought not to be left at large on the issue since a large number of matters are coming up involving similar factual texts and with similar orders. While we appreciate the anxiety of the state government but the fact remains that the law courts are primarily concerned with the concept of justice and justice alone and no other consideration. The matter in issue pertains to the year 1977, more than twenty five years have thus elapsed between the date of the incident and the date before this Court. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent has been rather candid in his submission and contended that as a matter of fact the High Court has had no jurisdiction to record a compromise and compound the offences since the same does not fall within the category of compoundable offences and as such he cannot but agree to an order of remand being passed in the matter herein. Would it be right and proper, however, to remit the matter back to the High Court for being dealt with on merits.

(4) Having regard to the submissions made by the parties herein, we do feel it expedient that the justice delivery system of the country does not warrant a further delay in the matter of disposal of the matter in issue. Sufficient delay has already taken place and further delay would render it to be a mere mockery of justice resulting thereby in total injustice. The accused person in fact suffered a lot of mental torment in this long twenty five years and it is no gainsaid that further placement of the accused in a prison would not enure to the benefit of any and would rather act as a deterrent factor for his future activities. Law court has a duty towards the society and it is in discharge of that duty if the law court feels that sufficient punishment has already been suffered, it would be within its jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders.

(5) On the wake of the aforesaid and having regard to the jurisdiction conferred under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution this Court deems it fit not to proceed with the matter any further and sentence already undergone be treated to be the sentence served by the accused in terms of the order impugned before this Court. The appeal thus stands disposed of, as above, bail bonds shall stand discharged.