SHIV PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused faced charge for committing an offence punishable under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Special Judge under the Electricity Act, Panchkula, qua the afore drawn charge, made a verdict of conviction, on 9/9/2011, qua the accused. Moreover, the learned Special Judge concerned, also proceeded to sentence the convict, to pay a fine of Rs.29,80,602.00, and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. However, the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused, during investigation or hearing of the case, was through the mandate, as carried in Sec. 428 Cr.P.C, hence ordered to be set off against the afore period of default sentence, imposed upon the convict.

(2.) The aggrieved convict assailed the afore drawn verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence (supra), through his instituting the instant Criminal Appeal No. S-2480-SB of 2011, before this Court.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits, that post verdict of conviction, the appellant had deposited the entire, imposed upon him, sentence of fine, comprised in a sum of Rs.29,80,602.00. The afore amount of fine, imposed upon the appellant, as unfolded in the order of sentence, drawn by the learned Special Judge concerned, was paid on the date, when the afore sentence of fine, became imposed upon him. The learned senior counsel for the appellant further argues, that though the endeavour to make composition of offence, in respect whereof, the convict became charged, and, also became convicted, could be validly made, even before the learned Special Judge concerned, whereas, it being made post verdict of conviction, inasmuch as through Annexure A-2, yet, in terms of the provisions, as carried in Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and theirs rather stipulating that the acceptance by the authorized officer concerned, of the quantified composition money, hence being deemed to be an acquittal, within Sec. 300(2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore he contends that the afore provisions become attracted qua the appellant, and, in consequence thereof, the appeal be allowed, and, the appellant be acquitted. For reasons hereafter, the above prayer is accepted.