SANGEETA GARG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No. 730 of 9.12.2013 registered at Police Station Anti Power Theft, Ludhaina under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (Annexure P -2).

(2.) AS per challan no. 1012 dated 18.11.2013, the seals of the electric meter of the petitioner which was installed outside his house on the electricity pole of the Department was found to be tampered. A case of theft was declared. A notice under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was sent to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,01,483/ - vide memo No. 896 dated 23.11.2013. In the above background, the FIR was registered.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner was that he was permanent resident of House No. 3020, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana and was having an electricity connection in DS Category under A/C No. KS14/1556 and paying the electricity consumption charges on the basis of measured consumption without any default. She shifted along with her family members to House No. 72 -K, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana in September/October 2012 on temporary basis as the above said house No. 3020 of the petitioner was under renovation. A temporary electricity connection Account No. T -19082 was got installed. She reshifted to the above said House No. 3020 Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana in July/August 2013 and the said temporary connection was surrendered in October 2013. Upon receiving notice under Section 135 of the Act dated 23.11.2013, petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure P -3). Designated Authority of PSPCL vide its order dated 30.8.2013 reduced the amount from Rs. 2,01,483 to Rs. 31,809/ - (Annexure P -4). The authorities while passing the order Annexure P -4 took into consideration that the original meter of the petitioner was installed outside the pole and the consumer had shifted to another house to get renovation of the house in question. Designated authority considering the consumption data and came to the conclusion that the consumer did not reside in this kothi for the period when the theft is alleged to have been committed. Two months charges were imposed upon him and the recovery was reduced from 2,01,483/ - to Rs. 31,809/ - and a revised bill (Annexure P -5) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the said amount under protest as directed by PSPCL on 3.3.2014 vide cheque No. 6843 dated 3.3.2014 for Rs. 31,809/ - vide receipt No. 255 dated 3.3.2014 issued by PSPCL. The said receipt No. 255 dated 3.3.2014 issued by PSPCL is annexed herewith as Annexure P -6. The grievance of the petitioner is that compounding charges of Rs.60,000/ - has been imposed by reviewing the aforesaid bill (Annexure P -5). Thereafter vide order/letter no. 2835 dated 13.3.2014 (Annexure P -7), PSPCL deleted word 'Sidhi Kundi' (direct connection) from notice (Annexure P -1) from the case of the petitioner. On notice, a reply has been filed by respondent no.1 justifying that the FIR had been rightly registered on account of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Act as the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited slapped a penalty of Rs. 2,01,483/ - on account of theft of energy vide memo No. 896 dated 23.11.2013. Even if the amount of penalty was reduced to Rs. 31,809/ -, the compounding charges of Rs.60,000/ - have not been deposited and hence the offence cannot be compounded as per Section 152 of the Act. Respondent no.2 has filed the reply. But, none has appeared to assist the Court on behalf of respondent no.2. In the written statement, the respondents have justified the imposition of compounding charges of Rs.60,000 vide bill (Annexure P -5). Petitioner has referred to the Regulation 21.2(c) of Supply Code which reads as under: