HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.218 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant/accused in I.E.S.C.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, by the judgment dated 28.01.2005 for an offence punishable under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short, ‘the Act’), and consequential sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default sentence of three months with a direction to set off the period of detention under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The accused-appellant, who is the owner of the Rice and Flour Mill, was accused of committing theft of electrical energy found during inspection by the officials, thus, committing an offence punishable under Section 44 of the Act and the accusations of the prosecution found favour with the trial Court, after compliance with all the procedural formalities, till the end of the trial. This appeal questioned the trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, in the absence of any independent witnesses, and also claimed that the offence being compoundable, the Judge ought to have seen that the offence was compounded. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed Crl.M.P.No.2188 of 2006 for availment of the benefit of Section 49B of the Act. This Court referred to the decision in Tamalampudi Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P.[1] as permitting even a convicted person to avail the benefit of compounding under the statutory provisions and concluded that there cannot be any impediment for the parties to get the offence compounded. In pursuance of the said orders, the learned counsel for the appellant produced a copy of the challan showing payment of compounding fee of Rs.70,000/- on 16.09.2009 to the credit of the appropriate account. On a request to the prosecuting agency to confirm the same, Sri K.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, filed the letter received from the Inspector of Police, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, dated 26.11.2009, before the Court, in which, it was stated that the compounding fee of Rs.70,000/- has been credited in the account of the Sub-Treasury, Tirupathi, and a copy of the challan is also enclosed to the same. Section 49B of the Act inserted by Act 35 of 2000 into the Central Act w.e.f. 31.07.2000 permitted compounding of such offences and it was positively stated in the provision that on payment of the sum of money in accordance with sub-section (1) thereof, no proceedings shall be continued against such consumer in any criminal Court. Sub- Section 3 of the provision stated that the acceptance of the compounding money in accordance with Sub-Section (1) by the concerned officer shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in view of the admitted remittance of the compounding fee by the appellant, the criminal proceedings against him cannot be continued and it shall be deemed that he is acquitted. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence in I.E.S.C.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dated 28.01.2005, against the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 44 of Act under Section 49B of the Act and this appeal is allowed accordingly. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged and the fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 27th November, 2009 SUR [1] 2003 (2) ALT (Crl.) 103 (A.P.)