Allahrakh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16297 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 16297 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 October, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Allahrakh vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 October, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3667/2018

Allahrakh S/o Khuda Bux, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Sindhi Musalman, R/o. Ambedkar Colony, Pipar City, P.s. Pipar City, Jodhpur Rural.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan.

2. Executive Engineer, (O And M), Bilara, Jodhpur.

3. The Police Station Officer, Electricity Theft, P.s. APT, Jodhpur (Raj).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. S. K. Bhati, PP
                                Mr. Pradeep Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

27/10/2021

The present criminal misc. petition has been filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of

F.I.R. No.45/2018 registered at Police Station APT (Anti Power

Theft), Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur pending at Additional

District & Session Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan for the

offence under Sections 135, 138 & 150(1) of the Indian Electricity

Act, 2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has deposited the entire dues before the respondent-department

and, therefore, the proceedings pending before the trial Court may

be quashed. He further submits that the amount of Rs.14,641/-

was   deposited     towards      the     civil    liability      and    penalty   for


                                        (2 of 3)                   [CRLMP-3667/2018]



compounding     the    said     offence       alleged       against   the   present

petitioner on 15.01.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh GanpatiHalvankar

Vs. The State of Maharashtra being I.A. No. 117535 of 2017 in Cr.

Appeal No. 156 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3670/2017

decided on 22.1.2018 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has

categorically held that the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of

the Electricity Act are both compoundable by virtue of Section 152

of the Act. He thus urged that as the petitioner has deposited

composition charges with the respondents, the authorities be

directed to compound the offences and the F.I.R. should be

quashed on the strength of such composition.

Mr. Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent is not in a position to dispute the said position of law.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Vs.

State of Maharashtra (supra) has held as under:

"(4) The Compounding of an offence under sub- section (1)shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer." It will be seen that both Sections 135 and 138, which impose a maximum sentence of three years, both deal with theft of electricity. The High Court has taken a very narrow view of Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is related stricto senso to Section 135 since that section alone deals with the offence of theft, but would not specifically refer to Section 138 which only indirectly relates to the offence of theft. Both the respondent as wellas the petitioner before us have moved the High Court stating that Section 138 would also be so subsumed and have continued to argue the same position before us. We are of the view that this is correct in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152 specifically states ......" an offence of theft" which according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well as

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3667/2018]

Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it becomes clear that any offence relating to the theft of electricity is also within the ken of Section 152. Section 138 also relates to theft of electricity, be it through maliciously injuring meters, and is therefore also within Section 152, and can therefore be compounded. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. We have been informed by learned counsel for the intervenor that the appellant before us has been prosecuted for perjury and that the proceeding in that behalf is pending. We say nothing about the aforesaid proceedings. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands allowed."

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the opinion that since the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held that both the offences i.e. offences under Section 135, 138 as

well as 150(1) of the Act are compoundable in nature, the

petitioner's offer to compound these offences as set out in the

impugned F.I.R. is liable to be accepted by the respondents.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is hereby allowed. The

proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.45/2018 registered at Police

Station APT (Anti Power Theft), Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur

pending at Additional District & Session Judge No.1, Jodhpur

Metropolitan is quashed and set aside. In case, any amount

remains due towards composition charges, the petitioner shall be

notified and the same shall be deposited by the petitioner

forthwith.