Offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act are compoundable, and payment of compounding fees leads to acquittal.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been preferred by the applicant with the following main relief:-

"1. Set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 31.03.2018 and impugned cognizance order dated 07.01.2019 whereby applicant has been summoned annexed as Annexure No. 2 & 3 to instant application and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the same which have been drawn against the Applicant in criminal case "State vs. Taliyan Yadav" u/s 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 Arising out of FIR No.- 461 of 2017, lodged at Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow pending in the court of Learned Additional District Judge (Fourth), E.C. Act, Lucknow."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR dated 10.12.2017 was lodged against the applicant under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (amended), 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2003'). As per the FIR, the applicant while constructing his residence took an electricity connection but using it for commercial purposes that amounts to theft of electricity.

3. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 is compoundable and by virtue of Section 152 of the Act and in pursuance thereof, on 13.06.2023 the applicant has deposited Rs. 1,00,000/ & Rs. 2,63,890/- as compounding fee and final revenue assessment respectively. The said fact has been accepted by Ms. Surbhi Rawat, learned counsel, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, who is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 i.e. the Junior Engineer, Engineering College, Jankipuram, Lucknow (the complainant).

4. It is further submitted that as per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar vs. The State of Maharashtra (being I.A. No. 117535 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal No. 156 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3670/2017 decided on 22.1.2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proceedings under Sections 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, where the accused had compounded the offences by paying the compounding charges and fulfilling the civil liability and wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act are both compoundable by virtue of Section 152 of the Act.

5. It is further submitted that as per sub Section 3 of Section 152 of the Act, 2003, which provides that 'the acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub-section (1) by the Appropriate Government or an officer empowered in this behalf shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.'

6. It is further submitted that this Court also, in Application U/S 482 No. 32905 of 2019, followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar (supra) and allowed the same.

7. Ms. Surbhi Rawat, learned counsel, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, who is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 is not in a position to dispute the said position of law.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Halvankar (supra) has held, as under:-

"(4) The Compounding of an offence under sub- section (1)shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer." It will be seen that both Sections 135 and 138, which impose a maximum sentence of three years, both deal with theft of electricity. The High Court has taken a very narrow view of Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is related stricto senso to Section 135 since that section alone deals with the offence of theft, but would not specifically refer to Section 138 which only indirectly relates to the offence of theft. Both the respondent as wellas the petitioner before us have moved the High Court stating that Section 138 would also be so subsumed and have continued to argue the same position befo