IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2429 of 2010() --------------------- SC.451/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------- R.VIJAYAN, S/O.RAGHAVA PANICKER, GAYATHRIYIL HOUSE, PERINGALA.P.O, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KAYAMKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHICK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 2429 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 1st day of July 2010 ORDER The petitioner who is the first accused in S.C. Case No. 451 of 2009 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Court, Mavelikkara, seeks to quash Annexure A final report as welll as all further proceedings in S.C. No. 451 of 2009 so far as it relates to the petitioner. The aforesaid case arose out of Crime No. 414/2005 of Kayamkulam Police Station registered for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and Sec. 379 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. Since theft of electricity was compoundable, the petitioner has compounded the offence under Section 152 (10) of Electricity Act, by remitting a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towarding the compounding fee. Sub Section 2 and 3 of Sec. 152 of the Electricity Act reads as follows:- “(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. Crl.M.C. No. 2429 of 2010 -2- 3) The acceptance of the sumof 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”. Thus, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 135 of the Act by virtue of the above provisions. 2. What now survives for consideration is Sec. 379 I.P.C. In the light of the observation in the decision in Paramasivam v. Union of India – 2007 (2) KLT 733 and Biswanath Patra v. Divisional Engineer – 2007 (4) KLT SN 7 (Case No. 5) Cal. the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. cannot have any independent legs to stand on. Annexure A final report as well as Sessions Case No. 451 of 2009 so far as it relates to the petitioner shall stand quashed. This Crl.M.C. is allowed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) Crl.M.C. No. 2429 of 2010 -2- ani.