Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1515 (AP)

TAMALAMPUDI SATYANARAYANA REDDY v. State Of A. P.

2002-12-24

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN these two Criminal Revision Cases, a common question of law arises. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the consumer of A. P. Electricity Board (since reconstituted into A. P. Transco and A. P. Genco - hereinafter referred to as the Board ). He is being supplied power through SC. Nos. 39210 and 33096. ( 3 ) ON 28-2-1997, an inspection by the Anti-Power Theft Squad of the Board look place. On noticing that power was being pilfered by the petitioner, the prosecution booked cases and they were tried as C. C. Nos. 55 and 56 of 1998 on the file of the II additional JMFC, Rajahmundry. The Trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 39 of the Indian electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in each case and directed that the sentence in both the cases shall run concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal nos. 210 and 211 of 1998 in the Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East godavari District, Rajahmundry. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the appeals, the petitioner filed Cri. M. P. Nos. 149 and 150 of 2002 respectively under Section 49b (1) of the Act, for compounding the offences. The application filed by the petitioner was opposed by the respondents on the ground that under Section 49b of the Act, compounding of the offence under Section 39 of the Act is permissible only when the proceedings are pending before the Trial court arid once the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court, the offence cannot be compounded. The lower Appellate Court upheld the contention of the respondents and dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner, through order dated 13-11-2002. Hence, the present Revisions. ( 5 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that though no reference is made to appeal under Section 49b, the word "proceedings" will take in its fold the proceedings before the Trial Court as well as in the appeal. According to him, the appeal is continuation of the trial and there is nothing in the Section, which prohibits the Appellate Court from compounding the offences. According to him, the appeal is continuation of the trial and there is nothing in the Section, which prohibits the Appellate Court from compounding the offences. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that since there is no reference to appeals in Section 49b of the act, it is not permissible to compound the offences once the accused was already convicted. ( 7 ) COMPOUNDING of offences is one of the methods of pleabargaining. Depending on the nature of the offences, the Legislature permits the person accused of the offences to compound the offences and thereby the procedure of trial and subsequent steps are avoided. Such facility is provided only in respect of certain classes of offences. The parameters of such classification depend on the impact of the alleged crime on the society, the motive of the person accused of the offence, etc. Generally, it is the offences, which are of lesser magnitude and those, which have little impact on the peace and tranquillity of the society, that are permitted to be compounded. The endeavour is to shorten the length of litigation and to reciprocate the remorse and repentance exhibited by the accused. Once the Legislature permits the compounding of a particular category of offences, the endeavour should be to give full effect to the same and not to restrict its operation and availability on hyper-technical grounds. ( 8 ) IN Cr. PC, the various categories of offences and the procedure to be followed in compounding the offences is provided for under Section 320. The Section is very comprehensive. It empowers the Trial Court, the Appellate Court as well as the High court, in exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 of the Code, to allow the offences to be compounded, subject to the fulfilment of the other conditions. ( 9 ) THE Indian Electricity Act, 1910, deals with the supply and use of electrical energy. It provided for licences, method of carrying out work and manner of supply and transmission of energy. It also provides for punishment for the offences committed by the consumers, licensees or other persons by contravening the various provisions of the act; Section 39 of the Act deals with theft of energy. It provided for licences, method of carrying out work and manner of supply and transmission of energy. It also provides for punishment for the offences committed by the consumers, licensees or other persons by contravening the various provisions of the act; Section 39 of the Act deals with theft of energy. On being found guilty of offence under Section 39, a consumer is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs. 10,000/-or with both. ( 10 ) ELECTRICITY, being a subject in the Concurrent List (Entry 38 of List 3 in schedule 7 of the Constitution of India), the legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh is also entitled to enact on the subject. Through Indian Electricity (AP Amendment) act, being Act 35 of 2000, the A. P. State legislature, had inserted Sections 49-B to 49-1 in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Section 49-B reads as under: 49-B. Compounding of offences : (1) notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central act 2 of 1974), any Officer of an Electricity utility specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government may accept from any consumer or person who committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of energy punishable under this Act, a sum of money by way of compounding for the offence as specified in the Table below and as may be modified by notification by Government from time to time.