In the matter of Smt. Bimla
Gupta And Sh. Rakesh ... vs State And Anr, the Delhi High Court made the following
observation in para 8 of the judgment:
“
It is clear that Section 135 speaks about the manner in which the
cases of dishonest abstraction of energy have to be dealt with. Likewise, Section 138 also deals with the theft of
electricity.”
Section 152 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly provides that the Appropriate
officer may accept from any consumer who is reasonable suspected of having
committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act,
a sum of money by way of compounding of the offences.
Also in the matter of Siddharth
Bhandari Vs. State of Karnataka the Assessing officer had accepted the
compoundable charges for compounding of the case under section 135 and 138 of
Electricity Act, 2003 and on that basis the petitioner had filed application
for discharge under section 227 of Cr.P.C. before Session Court. The
Session Court dismissed the application of discharge holding that section 138
is not compoundable. Against the order of Session Court, the petitioner filed
Writ Petition in the High Court. High Court allowed the Writ Petition and
set aside the order of Session Court discharging the petitioner. Relevant
para of the said judgment is produced below:
“Accordingly, the
offence committed by the Company was compounded as per S.152 of the Electricity
Act, 2003. In turn the alleged offences u/ss.135 and
138 of the Act have been compounded in the eye of law. This compounding
having relation to Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
amounts to acquittal in the eye of law.”