IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49676 of 2007 UMA CHARAN YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 2.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. Kotwali P.S. Case No. 352/07 was registered against the petitioner under Section 379 of the Penal Code and 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. The allegations are that the two Kilowatt LT connection of the petitioner was disconnected for non-payment of dues. Contrary to the same, he was found consuming electricity illegally causing revenue loss of approximately Rs. 36,200/- . The contention is that the petitioner has, in fact, deposited the sum of Rs. 36,200/- and, therefore, there is no justification for his prosecution now. Section 152 of the Electricity Act 2003 provides for compounding of offences with regard to theft of electricity. The petitioner is stated to have a two Kilowatt line. In accordance with the table to Section 152 he falls in the category “Other Services” and was required to make a deposit of Rs. 4000/- per Kilowatt. There is no material on record to satisfy this Court that the petitioner has, in fact, deposited a sum of Rs. 36,200/-. Section 152 Sub Clause (3) provides that if a prayer for compounding is made after deposit of the amount calculated, as aforesaid, it shall amount to an acquittal. Section 154(4), however, provides that such benefit shall be available to the consumer only as a one time measure. There is no pleading in the application that the petitioner also fulfils the requirement of Section - 2 - 152(4). The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008(4) SCC 582 while considering a compromise in allegations under Section 406 if the Penal Code held as follows:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” If the petitioner prefers an application before the Court below under Section 152 of the Electricity Act and produces necessary materials with regard to the applicability thereof both under Sections 152(3) and 152(4) of the Act, the Court below shall proceed to consider his application in light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above. The application stands disposed off with the aforesaid observations. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)