MOSMAT SWARAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Noticing the apparent conflict between two decisions of Single Judges of this Court, apparently in respect of the same issue, this case has been referred to Division Bench for settling the issue. The judgments in conflict are said to be in the case of Binod Giri vs. The State of Bihar & Another, 2007 2 PLJR 578. The second judgment, though reported later is the judgment rendered earlier in time to the former judgment. This is the case of Gopal Sao and Another vs. The State of Bihar & Another, 2010 1 PLJR 614. Both cases dealt with compounding of offences of electricity theft under Indian Electricity Act, 2003. in the first noticed case, that is, Binod Giri it was, inter alia, held by this Court that if upon detection of theft of electricity amount of loss and penalty quantified by the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is fully paid and accepted by the authority under Section 152(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that would amount to compounding of the offences resulting in acquittal and consequentially no prosecution could continue. In the later noticed case, being that of Gopal Sao and Another , it has been, inter alia, held that the quantification of loss for unauthorized use of electricity in terms of Section 126 of the Act and payment thereof is totally different from the provisions of Section 152 of the Act which provides for payment of compounding fee as mentioned under that section. The two liabilities are different and distinct. Payment of assessed amount under Section 126 of the Act would not absolve the petitioner of his criminal prosecution unless the compounding fee as envisaged in Section 152(2) of the Act is separately paid.

(2.) Thus seen, as we understand, if facts alleged and facts found in the two cases are taken into consideration there is no apparent conflict in the two judgments which are correct on their own facts. But, in view of the generality of the statements and/or expositions contained in the two judgments there is a confusion which does required to be cleared, especially when we notice that there are large number of reported cases following the judgment in the case of Binod Giri , as if it lays down the law that mere payment of the damages assessed in the F.I.R. would result in compounding the offences, which is not the correct approach.

(3.) The facts found in the case of Binod Giri is that the payment was accepted by the authority in terms of Section 152 of the Act and the natural consequence would be compounding and, consequential, acquittal, but this case does not say and should not be understood to be saying that if the assessed loss which is a penal assessment is paid it would amount to compounding of the offence which unfortunately is the trend of several subsequent judgments of the Single Judges of this Court.