Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19983 of 2018 Applicant :- Teetu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 others Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Saini, Chandan Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the particulars of the case number in the application both in the prayer and at the head of the application during the course of the day.
Heard Sri Devendra Saini, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shirish Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.S.T No. 111 of 2016 'State vs. Teetu Yadav' (arising out of Case No. 608 of 2014) under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 P.S. Kotwali District Ghaziabad pending before the Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Ghaziabad.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that a FIR giving rise to the crime above mentioned was lodged by the Power Corporation on baseless allegation of power theft whereas the police after a one sided, unfair and lackadaisical investigation have filed a charge sheet on the basis of which learned Special Judge, (E.C.) Act has taken cognizance. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the applicant has deposited all outstanding of his dues with the Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 33/11 KV Sub Station Patel Nagar-II Ghaziabad and has further deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the compounding charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 152 (1) of the Electricity Act in relation whereto receipt no. 28/555745 has been issued. The attention of the Court has further been drawn to a memorandum bearing no. 1014 dated 08.05.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 33/11 KV Sub Station Patel Nagar-II Ghaziabad addressed to the Special Judge (E.C.), Act, Ghaziabad saying that the Power Corporation does not wish to pursue the proceedings of SST No. 111 of 2016 under Section 135 Electricity Act any further.
Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 152 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 which are quoted below:
"152. Compounding of offences.-(1) X X X
(2) On payment of the sum of money in accordance with sub-section (1), any person in custody in connection with that offence shall be set at liberty and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such consumer or person in any criminal court."
(3) The acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence is accordance with sub- section (1) by the Appropriate Government or an officer empowered in this behalf shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(4) The compounding of an offenc under sub-section
(1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer.
(Emphasis by Court) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that a bare perusal of the provisions of section 152 (2) of the said Act brooks no manner of doubt that prosecution already instituted under the Act would not be continued against a consumer or a person in any criminal court once he discharges his liability by payment of outstandings due and compounding charges in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the said Act. In the instant case, there is no cavil that the applicant has discharged his liability by paying outstandings as well as compounding charges/fee to the corporation in relation to which the impugned prosecution has been launched as acknowledged by the letter of the Executive Engineer under reference.
Sri Shirish Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the veracity of the memo dated 08.05.2018 and on instruction received from opposite party no. 2 and the other competent authorities of the Power Corporation concerned does not dispute the fact that the applicant has discharged his liability towards outstandings of electricity dues and has further paid the requisite compounding charges in terms of Section 152 (1) of the Electricity Act. A reading of Section 152 (2) of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that once charges, in particular, compounding charges as provided under Section 152 (1) of the Act have been deposited by a consumer proceedings/prosecution already instituted and pending cannot be continued. This is precisely the case in hand. It may also be noticed that it is not at all the case of the second opposite party that the offence giving rise to the impugned charge sheet is a second offence by the applicant-consumer so as to attract the clause against the relieving provisions to Section 152 of the Act.
In view of the said facts the impugned charge sheet giving rise to the proceedings of S.S.T No. 111 of 2016 'State vs. Teetu Yadav' (arising out of Case No. 608 of 2014) under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 P.S. Kotwali District Ghaziabad pending before the Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Ghaziabad cannot be permitted to continue.
Accordingly, this Application stands allowed.
The impugned charge sheet giving rise to S.S.T No. 111 of 2016 'State vs. Teetu Yadav' (arising out of Case No. 608 of 2014) under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 P.S. Kotwali District Ghaziabad pending before the Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.
It is directed that an entry to the effect that the entire proceedings of Case No. 608 of 2014 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 P.S. Kotwali District Ghaziabad have been quashed under orders of this Court shall be made in the general diary of police station Kotwali District Ghaziabad.
Learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Ghaziabad shall enforce this part of order requiring appropriate entry to be made in general diary of police station concerned as directed above.
Before parting with this matter, this Court is constrained to notice that the Executive Engineer Electricity Electricity Distribution Division Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 33/11 KV Sub Station Patel Nagar-II Ghaziabad has addressed a letter to the learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act Ghaziabad recommending proceedings of the case now quashed to be dropped. It is rather exceptionable that an officer of whatever rank should write a letter to the court of the Special Judge before whom he is a litigant. It is not in keeping with the salutary principles governing maintenance of the decorum of courts to be communicated by a litigant through letters about the subject matter of a pending case on the judicial side. It is always be done through an application duly made, and, if required by law, after taxation to requisite court fee. It does not matter in this context, that the litigant is acting in an official capacity or is a private litigant. A litigant is a litigant and it is well known that the law is no respecter of men. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 33/11 KV Sub Station Patel Nagar-II Ghaziabad shall bear caution not to repeat this practice of writing letters to the courts in future.
The learned District Judge, Ghaziabad and the learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act Ghaziabad will also enforce appropriate discipline in regard to proceedings in court in context of what has been said hereinabove.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad and the learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act Ghaziabad forthwith by the office for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.05.2018 Deepak