IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 173 of 2010 Shri Fazal Hasan …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. [Per: Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 for compounding the offence and dropping of criminal proceedings initiated by them against the petitioner vide impugned F.I.R. No. 288/09 dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure-3) registered as Case Crime No. 288/09 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 2- Heard Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondents no. 1 & 2, Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 to 5 and perused the record. 3- It appears from the perusal of the writ petition that petitioner was sanctioned electrical connection of 10 KW for his Aata Chakki at village Munda Khera, Laksar, District Haridwar and he paid Rs.21000/- as licence fee to the Power Corporation. The meter was installed at petitioner’s Aata Chakki on 28.09.2008. On account of some fault in the supply line of the petitioner’s Aata Chakki, the petitioner made a written complaint and on his 2 complaint the lineman inspected his Chakki premises and reported at the sub station intimating that the transformer of Aata Chakki of the petitioner was defective and needed replacement. As per the averment made by the petitioners, respondent no. 5 did not provide the transformer timely which caused heavy financial loss to the petitioner due to power failure at his Aata Chakki. Ultimately, respondent no. 3 issued a demand letter on 26.12.2009, contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, amounting to 17700/- for alleged theft of electricity. The petitioner made the payment of compounding fee/assessed amount of Rs.17700/- vide receipt no. 36 dated 26.12.2009, contained as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the provisions of Section 152(2) of the Electricity Act, which reads as follows: “(2) On payment of the sum of money in accordance with sub-section (1), any person in custody in connection with the offence shall be set at liberty and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such consumer or person in any criminal court.” 5- Sri B.D. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 to 5 has submitted that only the assessment fee has been paid by the petitioner, while compounding fee has not been paid by him as yet, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under the provisions of Section 152(2) of the Electricity Act. 6- Having considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view 3 that if the entire amount due against the petitioner including the assessment/compounding amount has been paid by the petitioner with the competent authority, it is open for the trial court to initiate the proceedings for compounding the offence. It is made clear that Electricity Department shall also disclose the specific compounding amount to be deposited by the petitioner, so that the petitioner may deposit the same with the competent authority within a reasonable time as would be specified by the trial court. 7- With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17-03-2010 SP