Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amjad Khan vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, ... on 24 October, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139537-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110 LPA-2052-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 24.10.2024
Amjad Khan ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G., Haryana
Mr.Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Ankur Mittal, Advocate
Ms.KushaldeepK.Manchanda, Mr.Siddhant Arora, Advocates, for
respondent-UHBVN.
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
CM-4870-LPA-2024
1. Application for condoning the delay of 28 days in re-filing the
appeal is allowed in view of the averments made in the application duly
supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal
is hereby condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
CM-4871-LPA-2024
3. Application for condoning the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal
is allowed in view of the averments made in the application duly supported by
affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
4. CM stands disposed of.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139537-DB
110 LPA-2052-2024 (O&M) -2-
LPA-2052-2024
5. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
18.04.2024 of the Learned Single Judge, passed in CWP-1692-2016 whereby
the writ petition had been dismissed keeping in view the fact that
compounding charges had been deposited by the appellant on 02.01.2016 and
therefore, it was held that it would no longer be available to dispute the
findings and it would be a case of theft of electricity.
6. Once the compounding fee of the offence of theft had been
deposited without prejudice to his rights, the appellant would not be entitled to
raise the challenge, was the reason which weighed with the Learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition, upholding the assessed demand of
Rs.16,44,844/- and the additional amount of Rs.3 lakhs for compounding. It
was also noticed that there was nothing to show that the assessment had not
been done by the authorities as per the formula approved by the appropriate
Commission under the Electricity Supply Code and the Electricity Supply
Instructions Manual. Having accepted the liability as assessed and having
deposited the amount without prejudice to his rights, the appellant, thus, was
held not entitled to raise challenge to the demand raised.
7. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the letter dated
02.02.2016 (Annexure P-6) that the appellant had deposited the amount under
protest.
8. A perusal of the said letter would go on to show that checking
was done on 06.01.2016 and the meter was taken for testing in the M&P Lab
and the same was duly done in the presence of the consumer, which would be
clear from the report dated 13.01.2016 (Annexure R-7) which showed that all
four seals on MCB and CT Chamber were found tampered i.e. lace wire found
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139537-DB
110 LPA-2052-2024 (O&M) -3-
cut and refixed (as declared by M&P team at site). Relevant portion of the
report reads as under:
"Observation:-
1. In continuation to this office Endst No. Ch-76/M&T/CR dated
07/01/16 and LL-1 No.17,18/3338 dated 06/01/16 where it is
mentioned that accuracy of meter has been checked at site and same is
running slow by -67.49%. Also it is mentioned in LL-1 that all four
seals on MCB and CT Chamber found tamper i.e. lace wire found cut
and refixed (as declared by M&P team at site). Also it is mentioned in
LL-1 that M&P team has opened the CT Chamber as well as MCB and
found all secondary wire of external CT are interchanged. However,
the genuineness of M&T lab seals provided on LT CT meter has been
checked and same has been found in order internal examination is
carried out in presence of firm representative and no any external
circuit has been found in the meter."
9. It is apparently, on that basis the demand was raised regarding the
theft of electricity. Respondents also wrote to the concerned Police Station on
20.01.2016 (Annexure R-12) regarding the lodging of the FIR keeping in view
the fact that loss has been caused by committing theft and the consumer had
also been put to notice on 20.01.2016 (Annexure R-11) for compounding of
offence by paying a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Resultantly, prayer was made to the
police officials to lodge the FIR under Section 135 read with Section 151
under the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 152 provides for compounding of
offence by the Appropriate Government or any officer authorized by it in this
behalf, who may accept from any consumer or person who committed an
offence of theft of electricity punishable under the Act. Acceptance of sum of
money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub-section (1) by the
Appropriate Government or an officer empowered in this behalf is deemed to
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139537-DB
110 LPA-2052-2024 (O&M) -4-
amount to an acquittal within the meaning of Section 300 of Cr.P.C and the
benefit shall be only allowed once to any person.
10. In such circumstances, having bought peace by deposit of the
amount of Rs.3 lakhs, the appellant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold. It
was his option to face prosecution at one point of time and also contest the
amount. Having not done so, now, he cannot find fault in the procedure
adopted and challenge the same by way of writ petition to the demand of
Rs.16,44,844/- which was on account of indulgence in theft and opting to
accept the notice for compounding. In the absence of any challenge having
been raised to the checking report which had been done in the present of the
appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the Learned Single Judge was
well justified in dismissing the writ petition, in the above facts and
circumstances.
11. Resultantly, finding no ground to interfere in the same, the
present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. All pending application(s) also
stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
24.10.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
