SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Pat) 48

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.P.Singh, J.
Gopal Sao
Versus
State Of Bihar
Decided On : JANUARY 08, 2007

The provisions of sec. 126 and sec. 152 of the Electricity Act operate independently and in addition to each other, with sec. 152 providing an opportunity to compound criminal prosecution by paying a specified sum, while sec. 126 deals with the assessment of the amount payable for unauthorized use of electricity.

Headnote:

Electricity Theft - Indian Electricity Act - Sec. 39/44, Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners seek modification of the order related to theft of electrical energy and the amount to be deposited as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the quashing application for modifying the order and emphasized that the provisions of sec. 126 and sec. 152 of the Electricity Act operate independently and in addition to each other.

Issues: The issues revolved around the amount to be deposited for theft of electricity, the applicability of sec. 152 of the Electricity Act, and the petitioners' willingness to deposit the amount in instalments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that sec. 126 and sec. 152 of the Electricity Act are independent and operate in different spheres, with sec. 152 providing an opportunity to compound criminal prosecution by paying a specified sum, while sec. 126 deals with the assessment of the amount payable for unauthorized use of electricity.

Final Decision: The quashing application for modifying the order was dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to raise their points regarding the quantum of compounding amount and set off of excess amount in appropriate proceedings.

Judgment

S.P.Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties By instant quashing application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek modification of the order dated 26.9.06 passed by the learned session Judge in A.B.P. NO. 3668/06, arising out of Maner P.S. Case No. 175/06 u/s. 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioners committed theft of electrical energy caused loss of Rs. 15,000.00 each to the Board. It was alleged that the petitioners were consuming one kilowatt electrical energy stealthily by tapping wire by main LT line. The petitioners, apprehending their arrest, moved the sessions Judge for anticipatory bail wherein they showed their willingness and readiness to deposit the loss suffered by the Board in instalments. In view of the willingness of the petitioners to deposit loss suffered by the Board, the learned sessions Judge allowed privilege of anticipatory bail on deposit of Rs. 5,000.00 at the first instance within a month and thereafter to deposit remaining Rs. 25,000.00 in five instalments.

3. The petitioner now seek modification of the abovementioned order. In so much so that they want to deposit a lesser amount of Rs. 10,000.00 being compounding amount for persons engaged in (sic) using electricity for commercial purposes. In the alternative the petitioners submit that in view of sec. 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 at the most they would be liable to pay Rs. 20,000.00 and as such Rs. 30,000.00 to be deposited as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge be modified to Rs. 20,000.00 The petitioners seem to go back on their undertaking and submissions made before the. learned court below. Here in this court, they want to take aid of sec. 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads as follows:

152. Compounding of offences- (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Appropriate Government or any other authorised by it in this behalf may accept from any consumer or person who committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, a sum of money by way of compounding of the offence as specified in the Table below: Nature of service TABLE

1. Industrial Servicetwenty thousand rupees

2. Commercial serviceten thousand rupees

3. Agricultural Servicetwo thousand rupees

4. Other ServicesFour thousand rupees

4. The petitioners case is that they are consuming electricity commercially and as such they will come under the category 2 of nature of service given in the table and as per the same they are required to deposit Rs. 10,000.00 only. AS such prayer is made to modify the total amount to be deposited as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge from Rs. 30,000.00 to Rs. 10,000.00 or at most to Rs. 20,000.00 in respect of both petitioners. It has further been submitted that both brothers ought not to have been made accused of causing loss to the Board separately, As per prosecution case source of tapping energy is from common wire.

5. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned senior counsel for the Board made submissions both on merits of the case as well as on issues raised. He submitted that in regard to the petitioners submission that two brothers were committing theft of electricity through the same wire and establishment was one, could not be examined and gone into in anticipatory bail application in a threadware manner, on in this modification application in view of the specific allegation against the petitioners in the FIR. He further submitted that further minute details like period from which theft is being committed is also to be gone into us well as kilowatt quantity and the load of the electricity being used over the period. He further submitted that sec. 152 referred to above under Chapter 14 under the heading Offence and Penalty is an addition to the assessment under 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top