Judgment:
ORDER
Abhijit Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this application for the quashing of the First Information Report of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 137 of 2007 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, PESU conducted a raid in the premises of Saryug Vihar Complex which was under construction and found some persons indulging in theft of electrical energy by illegally taking connection from overhead L.T. supply line by means of tapping and thereby caused revenue loss to the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to the tune of approximately Rs. 34,000/-.
3. The specious stand of the petitioner is that he having paid the full amount of the bill issued to him is entitled to protection of Sub-section (3) of Section 152 of the Electricity Act which provides for compounding of offences on acceptance of money in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the Act and is also entitled to acquittal.
4. Raising strong objections to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Board sought to draw my attention to Section 152(1) of the Act and submitted that the compounding of the offence was permissible only if sum of money for compounding of the offences as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 152 is paid. In other words the defaulting consumer was required to pay compensation charges over and above the revenue loss caused to the Board, because of theft of electricity. This would mean that one would have to purchase acquittal which is completely against the rule of law and against administration of justice.
5. Two Single Judge decisions of this Court in the cases of Binod Giri v. The State of Bihar reported in 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. 578 and K.N. Ram v. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (3) P.L.J.R. 484, have in categoric terms held that once the amount is accepted there is statutory compounding of offences under Section 152 of the Act.
6. Even otherwise the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Electricity Board appear to be an argument of despair and out of context.
7. In the instant case the bill furnished by the Board and receipt of payment thereof granted by the Board have been appended as Annexure 2 to the application. A perusal of the undated bill clearly indicates that the bill for Rs. 34,000/- is towards 'Bill for compensation on account of theft of energy in pursuance of F.I.R. 137/07 dated 18.7.07 of Patliputra P.S.' and in the receipt granted it is mentioned in the column towards 'Miscellaneous'. It would thus be clear that the bill was towards compensation in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the Act and the same had been received through receipt No. 3880128 dated 21.7.2007. In the circumstances all the conditions stipulated by Section 152 of the Act having been fulfilled the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the F.I.R. of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 137 of 2007 is hereby quashed.