IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32985 of 2007 RAJ KUMAR VERMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5 11.11.2008 Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra No. 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although O.P. No. 2 the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, University, P.E.S.U., Patna, was duly served with notice he has chosen not to appear and contest the application. Through this application the petitioner seeks the quashing of order dated 6.7.2007 passed by Sri B. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 50 of 2006, whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge in view of section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a written report of the informant wherein he alleged that in course of checking electricity theft he along with other departmental staff and police force raided the premises of Shyam Bishram Lodge, Muradpur, whose proprietor was the petitioner and allegedly detected theft of electricity by the petitioner who was trapping electrical energy from the main service line prior to its entry into meter. The aforesaid theft of electrical energy is said to have caused a loss to the Board of Rs. 33,000/- It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had already deposited the alleged amount of - 2 - revenue loss to the Electricity Board vide receipt No. CN – A 1655806 dated 15.2.2006 and notwithstanding the same a charge sheet was submitted against him under section 135 of the Electricity Act on 31.5.2006 in complete contravention of the provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act which provided for acquittal in the event of the loss cause to the Board by means of dishonest theft of electricity being reimbursed. “152(2) on payment of the sum of money in accordance with sub Section (1) any person in custody in connection with when offence shall be set at liberty and no proceeding shall be instituted or continuance against such consumer or person under any criminal court. 152(3) : That acceptance of the sum o money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub Section (1) by the appropriate Governemnt 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).” The matter is no more res integra in view of the decisions in Binod Giri Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007(2) PLJR 578 and K.N. Ram @ Kedar Nath Ram Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 484. It would thus appear that once the amount with penalty by the authorities have been accepted under the provisions of section 152(3) of the Electricity Act 203 it would have an effect of acquittal in the case of the petitioner and the continuation of the proceeding - 3 - under the circumstances would be illegal and without jurisdiction. In the circumstances of aforementioned the order rejecting the discharge petition and the criminal proceedings arising out of Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 50 of 2006 is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)