KAKUMANU VINOD BABU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was accused in C.C.No. 143 of 1997 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. On 15.9.1996 at 11.30 A.M. R. Ramachandra Naidu, D.E. Operation, A.P.S.E. Board, Tenali along with his staff inspected the service connection of the accused and he observed that the accused had pilferaged the electricity energy bypassing the meter and thus the accused had committed theft of electrical energy. The inspection report was prepared and later a complaint was lodged. After the evidence was led by the prosecution, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d. to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d. to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. An appeal was taken, which was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Then this revision was filed. When the revision came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that a direction be given to the complainant to compound the offences in terms of Section 49-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short "the Act"). He submitted that such a direction could be given in view of the judgment of this Court being Tamalampudi Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. State of A.P.. A single Judge of this Court referred the matter to Division Bench. The direction given in the above judgment in Tamalampudi Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. State of A.P. was, "Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled for compounding of the offences against him, subject to payment of the amount as stipulated in the Table and sub-section (4) of Section 49-B of the Act."

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned senior counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy as amicus curiae. There is no dispute with the legal position as far as the meaning of 'compounding of offence' is concerned. Compounding means the compromise between the aggrieved person and the accused and according to judgments of the Calcutta High Court and Allahabad High Court respectively in Murray, (1893) 21 Calcutta 103, 112 and J. John, (1922) 45 Allahabad 145, the compounding of an offence signifies that the person against whom the offence has been committed has received some gratification, not necessarily of a pecuniary character, to act as an inducement for his desiring to abstain from a prosecution. Similarly in Rev. Father Godfrey Meeus Vs. Siman Dular, (1950) Nagpur 434, Nagpur High Court held that compromise of a compoundable case deprives the Magistrate of his jurisdiction to try it. As a matter of fact, there cannot be a compromise which can be forced either by the Court or by any one of the parties. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the code"), which has been referred to for the purpose of analogy, lays down that offences punishable under the sections of Indian Penal Code specified in the columns under the section may be compounded by the persons mentioned in another column. So in terms of the Code only those offences can be compounded which are mentioned in the table given under Section 320 of the Code and it is consistently held that the offences which are not mentioned in Section 320 of the Code cannot be compounded as far as Indian Penal Code is concerned. Under the offences which are mentioned to be compoundable, it is the aggrieved person by whom the offence could be compounded with the accused. It is well settled that an FIR could be filed for taking cognizance of any offence by anybody, but offences under Section 323 and 334 of the IPC could be compounded by only those persons to whom the hurt was caused. Similarly for offences under Sections 341 and 342 of IPC which pertain to wrongful restraint or illegal confinement, compounding can be made by person restrained or confined. These illustrations, which are by no means exhaustive, were only given to stress on the point that it is the aggrieved person and the accused who have to enter into a compromise which can be ordered.

(3.) Coming to the present reference, Section 49-B of the Act lays down,