IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49062 of 2007 NAND KISHORE SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 2.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the opposite party no. 2 Board. On 3.9.2004 a First Informant Report was lodged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act against the petitioner making allegations of unauthorized use of electricity causing revenue loss of approximately Rs. 5000/- to the Board. Upon the same cognizance has been taken on 6.4.2005. On 6.9.2004 the petitioner is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/-. This is in addition to the sum of Rs. 22,594/- deposited by him on 3.9.2004 towards arrear of disconnected supply line for non payment, and in which background the latter allegations have been made. The Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been promulgated with effect from 10th of June 2003. It appears that the present allegations have been made under Sections 33 and 44 of the old Electricity Act. Section 152 of the Act of 2003 contains a provision for compounding of offences. It provides that if a person who has committed or who is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, deposits a sum of money by way of compounding of the offence as specified in the Table, the acceptance - 2 - of the sum of money for compounding the offence shall be deemed to amount to acquittal, and that compounding was permissible only once for any person or consumer. The table to Section 152 of the Act contains item no. 4 (relevant for the present purposes) defined as “Other Services” The amount required for compounding is Rs. 4000/- per Kilowatt/Horse Power or part thereof for Low Tension supply. The present is a case of a Low Tension supply. The allegations in the F.I.R. or the materials pleaded in the application do not present a clear picture of the LT capacity line of the petitioner to hold that by payment of Rs. 5000/- he is automatically entitled to the benefit of Section 152(3). There is no pleading in the application that he fulfils the requirements of Section 152(4) of the Indian Electricity Act also. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that the petitioner has not moved any application before the Court below under Section 152 of the Act. 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 of the Indian 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 - 3 - 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.” It is held that where an offence is compoundable, the Court must lean in favour of the compounding parties and encourage them. The burden of the Courts becoming insurmounty, this has now become necessary. If the petitioner files an application under Section 152 of the Act and places all records, materials in fulfillment of Sections 152(3) and 154(4) of the Act, the Court below shall proceed to consider any such application in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as discussed above. The application stands disposed off. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)