DEPUTY ENGINEER Vs. MUSTAQAHMED FATEMOHMED PIRZADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred by the Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, through its Deputy Engineer [O &M], Sathamba under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking quashment of the Order dated 20th June 2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad below Exh. 10 in Special Case No. 64 of 2010.

(2.) The petitioner is a wholly owned Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of distribution of electrical energy in the northern region of the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioner that on 4th March 2010, when the connection of the respondent no.1 was checked, it was found that the respondent no. 1 was committing theft of electricity by cutting the service line coming to the meter and affixing the phase and neutral wire by 1/18 wire and thereby connecting the otherside with load in his house. Thus, despite there being consumption of electricity, it was not being recorded in the meter. This permanent arrangement was made to prevent the meter from recording actual consumption of electrical energy by bypassing the meter. Noticing the theft, the consumer was booked under Section <a style="color: #3300FF; text-decoration: none" class="section-text" onmouseover="getSectionText(this);" href="ACA028">135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and a bill for Rs. 11,076=23p. was issued. That, prior to this incident, on 23rd September 2009, when the connection of the respondent no. 1 was checked by Installation Checking Squad, it was found that theft was committed of electricity by bypassing the meter by applying 1/18 black colour loose wire with the phase and neutral to the service line and connecting the other end thereof to the Switch Board in his residence. It was his first offence of theft of electricity, he was booked for committing an offence under the provisions of Section <a style="color: #3300FF; text-decoration: none" class="section-text" onmouseover="getSectionText(this);" href="ACA028">135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and a supplementary bill of Rs. 2,492=49 paise along with fine of Rs. 1,000/= towards compounding charges was conveyed to the respondent no. 1, which was honoured, and therefore, no FIR was lodged against him. This being the second offence of theft, compounding of offence is not permissible under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and therefore, FIR was lodged against the respondent no.1, as provided under the provisions of Section 135 of the Act. The respondent no. 1 moved Special Court by filing an Application Exh. 10 in Special Case No. 64 of 2010 along with application Exh. 3 praying that he is ready and willing to pay the compounding charges. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad on 20th June 2011 passed an order directing the petitioner to accept the amount of compounding charges and thereby issue receipt of the same, despite the fact that the Court was informed by the petitioner herein that as per provisions of Section 152 (4) of the Act, there is no provision for compounding of the offence.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20th June 2011, the petitioner has preferred the present petition calling in question the impugned order on the grounds raised in the memo of the petition.