ORDER Heard the Counsel. 2. The Counsel for petitioners would maintain that in the light of the fact that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compounding fee, the proceedings in C.C. No. 1199/97 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate, East & North, Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District to be quashed. 3. Per contra, the learned Public prosecutor would maintain that the illegal gain or the wrongful loss caused to A.P.S.E.B is Rs.9,68,202/-. The learned public prosecutor also would maintain that absolutely there is no nexus between the compounding fee said to have been paid and the loss said to have been sustained by A.P.S.E.B. At any rate this is a matter to be gone into at the appropriate stage. 4. The petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 1199/97 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, east & North, Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioners under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience. The allegations in the charge sheet are that on 28-1-1997 at about 7.45 p.m., L.W.1 to L.W.3 inspected M/s Venkateswara Rice Mill, Uppal and found some pilferage. The loss was estimated at Rs.9,68,202/-. Immediately the 2nd Petitioner was arrested and he was released on bail. It is stated that he filed a Writ petition and on payment of some amount, the power was restored. It is further stated that the alleged offence had taken place on 28-1-1997 and ultimately six years had lapsed since the date of registration of the case, but till date the case had not been disposed of. The petitioners have been regularly attending the Court since 1997. It is further stated that there was amendment to Section 49-A and to Section 49-B of the Act aforesaid and the accused can compound the offence by paying the compounding fee and accordingly the petitioners paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compounding fee under sub-section (2) of Section 49-B of the Act. 5. It is further stated that there was amendment to Section 49-A and to Section 49-B of the Act aforesaid and the accused can compound the offence by paying the compounding fee and accordingly the petitioners paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compounding fee under sub-section (2) of Section 49-B of the Act. 5. The A.P. State Amendment to Section 49-B dealing with Compounding of offence reads as hereunder: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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. TABLE Nature of service Rate at which the sum of money for Compounding to be collected per K/W/HP part there of for LT supply and per KVA of contracted demand for HT supply. 1. Industrial service Rs.20,000/- 2. Commercial service Rs.10,000/- 3. Agricultural service Rs.2,000/- 4. Other categories Rs.4,000/- (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 at liberty and no proceedings shall be initiated or continued against consumer or person in any criminal Court. (3) The acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub-section (1) by the other specially 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. (4) The compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer. Explanation:- For the Purposes of this Section, Section 39-A and Sec. 49-C to 49-1, the word 'Electricity Utility' means a 'Licensee' or 'licensee holder' under Section 14 of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, (A.P. Act 30 of 1998) to transmit or supply energy. Explanation:- For the Purposes of this Section, Section 39-A and Sec. 49-C to 49-1, the word 'Electricity Utility' means a 'Licensee' or 'licensee holder' under Section 14 of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, (A.P. Act 30 of 1998) to transmit or supply energy. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Tamalapudi Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2003 (2) ALT (Crl.) 103 = 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 401 (A.P.) wherein the learned the Judge on this Court held that under Section 49-B of the Act inserted, by A.P. Amending Act 35 of 2000, the compounding of offence can be permitted even at the appellate stage. 6. The mere delay in disposal of the case by itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings in every case. It is no doubt stated that the petitioners paid an amount of 20,000/- as compounding fee. However, on a prima facie reading of the averments made in the charge sheet and the compounding fee, absolutely there is no nexus between the two. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to express any further opinion in 'relation thereto. In view of the peculiar facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners be given liberty to move appropriate application narrating all the facts and producing the relevant material in relation thereto. 7. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is hereby disposed of.