NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(From the
order dated 1.6.07 in Appeal No.317/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Petitioners
Megh Raj
Respondent
(From the
order dated 7.8.07 in Appeal No.1746/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Petitioners
Suresh Kumar Jain & Anr.
Respondents
(From the
order dated 3.7.07 in Appeal No.1138/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Petitioners
Vijay Kumar
Respondent
(From the
order dated 19.6.07 in Appeal No.1091/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Petitioners
Gurtej Singh
Respondent
(From the
order dated 27.7.07 in Appeal No.1524/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Petitioner
Rakesh Gupta
Respondent
(From the
order dated 3.7.07 in Appeal No.1207/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Petitioner
Narendra Kumar
Respondent
(From the
order dated 9.7.07 in Appeal No.1289/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Petitioners
Ved Pal
Respondent
(From the
order dated 7.8.07 in Appeal No.1059/07 of the State Commission,Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Petitioners
(From the
order dated 21.9.07 in Appeal No.331/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Petitioners
Smt. Sunita Anand
Respondent
(From the
order dated 10.8.07 in Appeal No.239/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Petitioner
Mastan Singh
Respondent
(From the
order dated 20.8.07 in Appeal No.1739/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Petitioners
Mohinder Pal
Respondent
(From the
order dated 10.9.07 in Appeal No.10.9.07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Petitioners
Gaje Singh
Respondent
(From the
order dated 6.9.07 in Appeal No.860/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Petitioners
Kamaljit Singh
Respondent
(From the
order dated 5.10.07 in Appeal No.2042/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Petitioners
Jagdish Chander
Respondent
(From the
order dated 27.2.08 in Appeal No.3513/07 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Petitioners
Gian Chand
Respondent
BEFORE :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE
M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO,
MEMBER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE
K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER
(in all the cases) Chaturvedi,
Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate
(in R.P.3244/07)
For the Respondent : Mr.Sachin Jain, Advocate
(in R.P.3319/07)
For the Respondent : Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
(in R.Ps 3347/07, 3596/07 & 3813/07)
For the Respondent : Mr.Ajay Majithia, Advocate
(in R.P.3364/07)
For the Respondent : Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate
(in R.P.3669/07)
For the Respondent : Mr.R.S. Mann, Advocate
(in R.P.4261/07)
Dated :
The only question which requires consideration in these Revision Petitions is Whether under the Electricity Act, 2003, the officers of the electricity company are empowered to arbitrarily direct the consumers to deposit the amount according to their whims with a threat that failure to deposit the said amount would result in disconnection of electricity power or they would be prosecuted?
Facts, in brief, in these Revision
Petitions are as under :
Revision Petition No.3144/2007
The consumer was provided with electricity connection bearing account No.MT-11/0280 at his premises. On 27.4.2006, Shri V.K. Vohra, Asstt. Executive Engineer, M&B, Hisar in the company of other staff members checked the meter installed at the premises of the complainant and found that MCB as well as company seals of the meter were tampered with. The connected load was found to be 1.053 KW against the sanctioned load of 3 KW. The pulse rate was very slow so to say three pulses instead of 11 pulses and for that reason the meter was running very slow. The meter was removed and handed over to the members of the Checking Party. Report was signed by the complainant Megh Raj and other officials of the Checking Party. Thereafter, a notice bearing No.2474-75 dated 1.5.2006 consisting of penalty amount of Rs.67,592/- and compounding amount of Rs.12,000/- total being Rs.79,592/- was served upon the complainant. The complainant was directed to deposit the said amount within three days of the notice failing which it was stated that the report would be lodged in the concerned Police Station. Aggrieved by the demand made in the above stated notice, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint.
On 30.1.2006, the officials of the Opposite Parties checked the meter of
the complainant bearing account No.B-1/4/41 installed at the Atta Chakki of the
complainant. At the time of checking,
they found the meter glass gasket tampered with in order to insert the x-ray
film to stop the disc and to abstract the energy illegally and unlawfully. The meter was removed and sealed into a
cardboard box. In addition, the cables
were also removed and taken into possession.
Separate Checking Report was prepared which was signed by the
complainant. Thereafter, a penalty
amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was determined and Notice bearing Memo No.602 dated
31.1.2006 was issued to the complainant.
Revision Petition No.3539/2007
On 19.9.2005, the
domestic electricity meter of the complainant bearing account No.DL-21/2099 was
checked by Shri Man Mohan Singh, J.E. Vigilance Staff in the company of Shri
Prem Chand Rathi, J.E. (Operation) and other staff members, in the presence of
Shri Vivek Kumar, son of the complainant.
The meter box was opened and it was found that firm seals of the meter
were tampered with from latch wire. Glue
type material was found filled in the plastic punch. The load was also found to be 8.956 KW. The electric supply of the complainant was
disconnected. The meter was removed and packed in the presence of the
complainant and handed over to Shri Prem Chand Rathi, J.E.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, penalty amount of Rs.90,000/- was
determined for which Demand Notice bearing No.1856 dated 22.9.2005 was issued
to the complainant.
Revision Petition No. 3596/2007
The complainant obtained
a NDS electricity connection bearing No.SH01-2699-J/AI-449 with a sanctioned
load of 2.1.KW at his premises for running a small water pump in order to earn
livelihood for himself and his family members.
On 19.1.2006, the vigilance staff of the Opposite Parties checked the
meter installed at the premises of the complainant and found him committing
theft of electrical energy. On the basis
of the checking report dated 19.1.2006, a penalty amount of Rs.60,000/- was determined
and a Demand Notice bearing No.58/CA dated 20.1.2006 was issued to the
complainant.
Revision Petition No.3668/2007
The complainant is having
electricity connection bearing account No.B1-1632 in her premises. On 20.3.2006, Vigilance team headed by the
AEE, namely, Shri S.L. Bindal accompanied by other officials, checked the meter
installed at the premises of the complainant and found that all the three
M&T seals of the meter were tampered with.
The impression of the drill bit was also found existing in the M&T
seals with digits projected and disturbed at the entry points of the lace in
lead seals. The top M&T seals
bearing impression J-22355/AOM having lace wire were found not inserted through
the whole path of the meter body and the lace wire was found directly connected
in the lead seal without routing through the designated whole meter body. Load was found to be 14.646 KW whereas the
sanctioned load was found to be 19.5 KW.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, the electricity supply was disconnected
and the meter was removed and sealed in a cardboard box. On the basis of the checking report dated
20.3.2006, a penalty amount of Rs.81,000/- was determined and a Demand Notice
bearing No.SPL-1 dated 20.3.2006 was served on the complainant.
Revision Petition No.3669/2007
On 9.9.2005, the
electricity meter bearing account No.H-541, installed at the premises of the
complainant, was checked by the vigilance team of the Opposite Party. They found that the complainant was using
excess load of 9.746 KW in place of the sanctioned load of 7.2 KW. They also suspected the genuineness of the
seals of the meter and for that reason recorded in the checking report that
genuineness of M&T seals may be got verified from M&T lab along with
accuracy at the time of replacement of mechanical meter with electronic
meter. The meter was taken into
possession and was sent to M&T lab, Dhulkot and the M&T round seals
were found existing on the meter cover bearing impression AM-140. The testing branch No. on the meter was
DKTC-261. The said meter was tested on
3.7.2005. The seal impression AM-140
existing on the meter cover was not functional in the lab on 3.7.1985 as the
sealing plier with impression AM-140 was in operation in the lab from the
period 16.2.1987 to 27.5.1988 as per record.
Accordingly, it was concluded that the meter cover with impression
AM-140 was fake.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, penalty amount of Rs.40,000/- was
assessed and Demand Notice bearing No.1192 dated 17.11.2005 was served on the
complainant.
Revision Petition No.3813/2007
The complainant has been
provided with an electricity connection bearing account No.CT13-1633-E/KC2-234
at his business premises wherein the complainant and his family members had
started the work of aluminium moulding.
On 20.10.2005 the vigilance staff of the Opposite Parties checked the
meter installed at the premises of the complainant and found that I/C PVC
service line existing inside the enclosed room, could be shifted outside the
room through appropriate route. They
further found two numbers joints fixed in the service line feeding to the
connection. The reading of 1522 units
was found accumulating and both the M&T seals (found) were found tampered
with. Lace wire was also cut and refixed
with adhesive material for abstracting the energy illegally. The meter was removed and taken into
possession by sealing in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, a Demand Notice bearing Memo No.727
dated 20.10.2005 was issued to the complainant demanding compounding fee of
Rs.21,850/-.
Revision Petition No.3347/2007
The complainant is doing
the work of electroplating to earn his livelihood for which an electricity
connection bearing account No.TP-187 has been provided to him.
On 3.1.2006, the said meter was checked by the vigilance staff of the
Opposite Parties and recorded observation in the checking report The Electro
Mechanical Meter may be replaced with electronic meter. The removed Electro Mechanical Meter may be sent
to Lab at Dhulkote for ascertaining the genuineness of the seals and
accuracy. The domestic load is
intermixed with SP Load whereas the industrial load not found available at this
site. Thereafter, notice for checking
the meter on 7.3.2006 at Dhulkote was issued to the complainant to be present
at the time of testing of the meter at the AEE M&P Lab, Dhulkote. On opening the cardboard box, 2 nos. M&T
seals bearing No.Y-93031/AM-120, Y-93032/A-62727 existed on the meter
cover. As per the record available in
the lab, the said meter was tested in the lab on 7.11.1994 with seals
No.A-62726 with sealer impression No.AM-10 and AOM 24 provided on meter cover.
As the existing seals of the meter cover did not tally with the lab record, it
was concluded that the seals on the meter were fake and duplicate.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, a Demand Notice bearing Memo No.211
dated 8.3.2006 was issued to the complainant levying penalty of Rs.2,20,700/-
and Rs.700/- as cost of the meter which had been replaced.
Revision Petition No.3319/2007
The complainant is having
electricity connection bearing account No.RA-11/48 at his premises. On 28.6.2006, Shri Ashok Panny and Shri Prem,
J.E. with other staff members visited the premises of the complainant in order
to check the meter installed therein.
They found a cut in the PVC.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, the electricity supply was
disconnected.
Based on the checking report, a compounding Notice bearing Memo No.914
dated 29.6.2006 was issued whereby the complainant was asked to deposit
Rs.46,016/- assessed as compounding amount though the total liability was
indicated to be Rs.1,31,530/-.
Revision Petition No.3277/2007
The electricity meters bearing account No.BS/55 and BS/154 installed at the premises of the
complainant were checked on 9.2.2005 by the vigilance staff of the Opposite
Parties. In the checking report in
respect of connection No.BS/55, it was recorded that TDCO was effected on
18.10.2004 but three phases were alive as displayed in the meter. It was further mentioned that factory was
shut down and the maintenance was in progress.
The meter fuses grips were found removed. Pulse checking was found to be normal when
checked with the required instrument.
In respect of the second meter bearing account No.BS/154, the inspecting
team recorded that the meter installed in MCB was not sealed by the operation
staff. Thereafter the meter was further
checked by opening the MCB door and it was found that the meter terminal plate
was found missing. Four meter cover
seals were found existing and intact.
One side rivet strip was found broken on meter cover. The meter was removed and packed in cardboard
box for sending the same to the M&T lab.
The meter was tested in the lab of the Opposite Parties and as per
report dated 22.3.2005 it was observed that a small gap was created between the
meter body and meter cover on the RHS of the meter. In addition, after scratching the sticker
mentioning CAUTION: ROTOR BLOCKED a created pin hole was found below the
sticker in the front side of the above meter glass in the metallic cover and
some scratches were also visible on the specification plate specially on the
1000 digit.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, a Demand Notice bearing Memo
No.1801 dated 24.3.2005 was served on the complainant to pay a penalty of
Rs.93,120/-.
Revision Petition No.3244/2007
The complainant is having
electricity connection bearing account No.PS31/2527. On 20.6.2006, the meter installed at the
premises of the complainant was checked by Shri A.S. Babbar and Shri S.K. Bali,
staff members of the Opposite Parties.
They found that MCB was broken and after opening the meter top seals
were found tampered with.
Taking it a case of theft of energy, penalty amount of Rs.1 lakh was determined
and a Demand Notice bearing No. Spl.I dated 21.6.2006 was served on the
complainant.
Revision Petition No.4261/2007
The complainant is having
electricity connection bearing account No.YY13/4727. On 27.9.2005, the officials of the Opposite
Parties inspected the meter installed at the premises of the complainant. At that time, father of the complainant and
one Ashok Kumar were also present.
During the checking, the outgoing phase grip of the meter was found
disconnected and the phase was being taken from flat rate tubewell of Punnu Ram
existing in the same premises which was connected directly with the PVC wire
from the main line to the fitting of the house and poultry farm. The meter was found dead and stopped
intentionally to steal energy unlawfully and illegally. The meter and PVC were removed and handed
over to Shri R.L. Beniwal. The
photographs of the place were taken by Shri Pradeep Kumar.
Taking it a case of theft
of energy, a Demand Notice bearing Memo No.1691 dated 28.9.2005 demanding
Rs.30,000/- as penalty was issued to the complainant.
Revision Petition No.1660/2008
An electricity connection
bearing account No.C-2166 has been provided at the shop of the
complainant. On 12.4.2006, the officials
of the Opposite Parties checked the meter installed at the aforesaid premises
and found one M&P seal tampered with and refixed. They also checked the accuracy of the meter
functioning and found the meter to be running slow by 75%.
Taking it a case of theft
of energy, a Demand Notice bearing Memo No.737 dated 19.4.2006 was issued to
the complainant asking him to pay the compounding amount of Rs.19,291/-.
Revision Petition No.850/2008
The complainant is having
two electricity connections bearing account No.TT-39/309 DS and TT-39/4365 NDS
at his residential premises as well as dairy premises. One of the meters was three phase electronic
and other was single phase mechanical meter.
On 10.9.2005, the
officials of the Opposite Parties inspected the above stated meters. On checking of the three phase electronic
meter, MCB was found to be loose and after removing the MCB, all the four firm
seals were found to be tampered with. In
case of SP mechanical meter, a hole was found in the lower portion of the meter
body.
Taking it a case of theft
of energy, the supply to the meters was disconnected and both the meters were
removed. A penalty of Rs.24,750/- was
determined in respect of meter account No.TT-39/309 DS and another penalty
amount of Rs.41,350/- was determined in respect of the meter account No.39/4365
NDS and a Demand Notice bearing Memo No.1282 dated 10.9.2005 was served on the
complainant.
Revision Petition No.436/2008
The complainant is having
electric connection bearing account No.SK-17/3052. On 28.2.2006, the staff of the Opposite
Parties checked the meter installed at the premises of the complainant and
found him taking electricity supply directly from the main line by connecting
the PVC wire from main line to the grip.
The meter was removed and checking report was prepared. The load was also found to be 2.329.
Taking it a case of theft
of energy, a Demand Notice bearing No.264/CA dated 28.2.2006 for the demand of
Rs.12,000/- was issued to the complainant.
FINDINGS :
From the findings of fact recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum, it is apparent that the orders passed by the officers of the electricity company are arbitrary, unjustified and de hors of statutory provisions. It is high time that the concerned officers should be given training or should be made aware of the powers under the Act so that such misuse may not be there in future. In any case, if there is unauthorized misuse of electricity, the same can be dealt with in accordance with law.
At this stage it would be
necessary to reproduce the procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Act,
which reads as under :
Section 126
Assessment (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection
of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after
inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to
the conclusion that such person in indulging in unauthorized use of
electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement
the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other
person benefited by such use.
(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.
(4) Any person served with the order of provisional
assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with
the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order
upon him.
(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.
(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5).
Explanation
For the purposes of this section, -
(a) assessing officer means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government ;
(b) unauthorized use of electricity means the usage of
electricity
(i)
by any
artificial means ; or
(ii)
by a means
not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee ; or
(iii)
through a
tampered meter ; or
(iv)
for the
purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized ; or
(v)
for the
premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was
authorized.
a)
empowers the
concerned officers to have an inspection of any place or premises of the
consumer to which electricity is supplied;
b)
after inspection
of the equipments/ gadgets/ machines or devices found connected or used, if the
assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such consumer is indulging in
unauthorized use of electricity, he is required to provisionally assess to the
best of his judgement the electricity charges payable by such consumer or by
any other person benefited by such use;
c)
such conclusion
can also be arrived at on the basis of inspection of the record maintained by
the consumer;
d)
the order of
provisional assessment is required to be served upon the person in occupation
or in possession or in-charge of the premises in such manner as may be
prescribed;
e)
thereafter,
consumer is entitled to file objection against the provisional assessment
before the assessing officer;
f)
thereafter,
reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be given to such consumer;
g)
after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing, final order of assessment within 30 days
from the date of service of such provisional assessment order is required to be
passed;
h)
sub-section (4)
empowers the consumer to accept the provisional assessment and deposit the
assessed amount with the electricity company within 7 days of service of such
provisional assessment order on him.
Further, as stated above, the provisional assessment order, power is restricted for the period prescribed under sub-section (5), which provides that such assessment shall be made for the entire period during which unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and, in any case, if the period during which unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection.
Also, there is further limitation under sub-section (6) for assessment in case of unauthorized use of electricity that such assessment shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified under sub-section (5).
The aforesaid entire procedure is required to be followed before passing the assessment order.
Not only this, under Section 127 of the Act, the said assessment can be challenged by filing appeal within 30 days of the said order. At present, we are not required to consider the provisions of Section 127 in detail.
All the aforesaid
statutory provisions are required to be kept in mind before passing any order
either of the provisional assessment or before launching prosecution.
Further, even if we refer
to the amended provisions of section 135 whereby section 135(1A) is added with
effect from 15.6.2007, then also in the case of apparent theft of energy, the
officers are required to make the assessment under section 126. This would be clear if we refer to the third
proviso to section 135(1A). Section
135(1A) reads as under :
Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the
licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of
electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity :
Provided that only such officer of
the licensee or supplier, as authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate
Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be
of the rank higher than the rank so authorized shall disconnect the supply line
of electricity:
Provided further that such officer
of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in
writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having
jurisdiction within twenty four hours from the time of such disconnect:
Provided also that the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount
or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall,
without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in
the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within
forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment;
This provision would
apply in case where there is apparent theft of electricity as contemplated
under section 135(1). That means, the
ingredients of section 135(1)(a) to (e) are required to be prima facie satisfied. In any set of circumstances, the third
proviso to section 135(1A), which contemplates deposit or payment of the
assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, would definitely mean that procedure of assessment under section 126 is
followed. We make it clear that Section
135(1A) was not applicable in the present cases because the raid was carried
out by the officers in the year 2005/2006.
However, as stated above, the officers have not understood the provisions of section 126 of the Act and no provisional or final assessment was made in all the aforesaid cases. Straightway they presumed that it was an offence for which complaint under Section 151 of the Act is to be filed and thereafter the officers thought that they were empowered to compound the offences as contemplated under Section 152 of the Act. Therefore, they straightway issued Notice directing the complainants to pay the amount on the basis of Schedule under Section 152. This is nothing but arbitrary and against the law.
Section 152 of the Act provides as under :
Section
152
Compounding of offences (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Appropriate
Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf may accept from any
consumer or person who committed or who is reasonably suspected of having
committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, a sum
of money by way of compounding of the offence as specified in this Table below
:
___________________________________________________________________
Be
collected per Kilowatt (KW)/Horse Power (HP) or
part thereof for Low Tension (LT) supply and per Kilo
Volt
Ampere (KVA) of contracted demand for High Tenstion (HT)
___________________________________________________________________
(1)
(2)
___________________________________________________________________
1. Industrial Service twenty thousand rupees ;
2. Commercial Service ten thousand rupees;
3. Agricultural Service Two thousand rupees;
4. Other
services Four thousand
rupees:
Provided that the Appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the rates specified in the Table above.
(2) On payment of the sum of money in accordance with
sub-section (1), any person in custody in connection with that offence shall
be set at liberty and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued
against such consumer or person in any criminal court.
(3) The acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub-section (1) by the Appropriate Government or an officer empowered in this behalf shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(4)
The compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once
for any person or consumer.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that once the officers arrived at the conclusion that the consumer has committed theft of electricity without following the procedure under section 126 straightaway complaint can be filed, as contemplated under Section 151 and even in cases where the complaint is not filed they have power to issue notices under Section 152 of the Act for compounding the offences.
In our view, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted. Bare reading of Section 152 indicates that power under Section 152 is to be exercised if any consumer or person has committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, applies for compounding of the offence, the officer is empowered to compound the offence by charging the amount as provided in the table stated under section 152. Further, sub-section (2) also indicates that on payment of money in accordance with sub-section (1) any person in custody in connection with the offence shall be set at liberty and no proceeding shall be instituted or continued against such consumer or person in any criminal court. This would also establish that such power may be exercised when complaint as provided under Section 151 is pending. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 152 declares that acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence would amount to acquittal within the meaning of section 100 of the Cr.P.C. meaning thereby that there must be some prosecution pending before the court.
In view of the aforesaid finding on question of law, we are not discussing the evidence which is appreciated by the State Commission and the District Forum.
Hence, the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum in the aforesaid Revision Petitions cannot be said to be in any way erroneous.
In the result, the Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
.J.
( M.B. SHAH)
PRESIDENT
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER
.J.
(K.S. GUPTA)
MEMBER
/sra/