`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 3680 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.5.2009 Satish Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and anr …Respondents Present: Mr Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr AS Ghangas, DAG Haryana. Mr Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent-2. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code (IPC - for short) and Sections 135 and 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of SDO (Op) Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (Nigam – for short), Assandh. It is alleged that the premises of the petitioner were inspected by the authorized Inspecting Officers of the Nigam along with the Vigilance Checking Party on 20.12.2008 at 8.50 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. The details of the checking report and premises of the consumer have been mentioned. It was observed that during inspection, there was dishonest use of electricity inasmuch as theft of electricity had been committed by connecting line copper 3 Red plus 3 Nos. blue colour wire directly with the Nigam LT Line. The memo after inspection was duly handed-over to the petitioner who was Cr Misc M-3680 of 2009 2 present at the time of the inspection. The said fact indicated that the petitioner had been indulging in the theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Accordingly, on account of causing loss of revenue to the Nigam for the act of theft of electricity, the details of amount have been mentioned in the FIR. It is alleged that the petitioner had caused revenue loss to the Nigam amounting to Rs 46,12,802/-. Accordingly, it was requested that FIR be registered. The petitioner was served with a notice (P2) by the SDO (Op) Sub Division of the Nigam for compounding the offence of theft of Electricity under Sections 135 and 152 of the Electricity Act. In terms of the said notice (P2), the details of amount of compounding are mentioned as Rs 14,40,000/-. The petitioner admittedly has deposited 7 bank drafts of Rs 14,40,000/- with the complainant in terms of the notice (P2). Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Satya Parkash, PS Assandh submits that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that more amount is yet to be recovered and compounding of the offence in fact is not permissible in view of Instructions No.252 of 2007 issued by the Nigam. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that a perusal of the notice (P2) would show that the details of amount of compounding are given which work out to Rs 14,40,000/0. The said amount has admittedly been deposited by the petitioner. The offence under Section 379 IPC is compoundable in terms of Section 320(1) Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC – for short). Section 152 of the Electricity Act 2003 provides for compounding of the offences. It envisages that Cr Misc M-3680 of 2009 3 notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, the appropriate govt 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 the said Act, a sum of money by way of compounding of the offence as specified in the table mentioned therein. Therefore, the notice (P2) having been issued for compounding the offence and the compounding fee having been paid, the reliance placed on the Instructions No.25 of 2007 which are even otherwise debatable to be having legislative sanction, is devoid of any merit. The Police does not require the custody of the petitioner for the purposes of investigation. In case the complainant has any due further recoveries to be made, it would be open to it to recover the same in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 11.2.2009 is made absolute. The petitioner, in the event of his arrest, shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the arresting/IO. He shall, however, join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. 18.5.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge