JUDGMENT Rule. 2. Returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally with consent of parties. 4. Both these applications can be decided together since both the applicants seek to quash the same F.I.R. for which Crime No.3330/07 is registered against them Application No.867/07 is filed by Kiran while application No.1599/07 is filed by Vimalabai Madura. 5. A few facts may be stated thus: One Soloman owned a house. Applicant Kiran is the daughter-in-law while applicant Vimala is the married daughter of Soloman. It appears that Soloman before his death had executed gift deeds in favour of grand sons i.e. son of Kiran and also in favour of Vimala. It also appears that he had executed a will. Both Kiran and Vimala appear to have instituted civil suits against each other and they are pending. There were in all 4 separate electric meters in the said house. It is alleged that all of them were got transferred in the name of Petitioner Kiran but it appears that out of those 4 meters only one is in use and supply through other three meters is disconnected. 6. Due to the several complaints made by petitioner Kiran's husband the meter in question was checked by the staff of the Electricity Distribution Company and it was found that it was tampered with and meter was running slow. Due to this the electric supply company lodged the F.I.R. with the police and offence under Sections 135 and 138 of Electricity Act has been registered against both the applicants. It is this F.I.R. which they seek to quash. 7. I have heard Shri. Raghute and Shri. Dwivedi learned counsel for the applicants and Shri. Deshpande learned counsel for the respondent-Electric Supply Company. 8. The main thrust of the argument of both Shri. Raghute and Shri. Dwivedi is that the F.I.R. could not have been registered against his client. Shri. Raghute representing Kiran submits that although the meter stands in the name of his client and she is also taking the supply through it, it is in exclusive custody of Vimala and it is she who has tampered the meter. He submitted that she alone has committed tampering and the theft. Shri. Dwivedi on the other hand submitted that kiran being the owner of the meter she alone can be prosecuted under the Act. 9. He submitted that she alone has committed tampering and the theft. Shri. Dwivedi on the other hand submitted that kiran being the owner of the meter she alone can be prosecuted under the Act. 9. Shri. Raghute's main contention was that in view Of the provisions contained in Section 126 of the Electrity Act 2003 (before ah1ehdJllertt in 2007) his c1ieht cannot be prosecuted. Section 126 of the Act before its amendment reads as follows: Assessment: (1) if on an inspection of arty place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices fauna connected or 'used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The person, on whom a notice has been served under sub-section (2) shall be entitled to file objections if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who may, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person. (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him: Provided that in case the person deposits the assessed amount, he shall not be subjected to any fUI1her liability or any action by any authority whatsoever. (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorized use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of domestic anti agricultural services and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises Of place. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to one and half times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation - For the purposes of this section, (a) “assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) “unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; Or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised.” It is apparent from Annexure 8 in Criminal Application no.867/07 that assessment was made and the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs. 21,940/-. He submitted that this amount is already paid and therefore by virtue of proviso to Sub-Section 4 of Section 126 no action whatsoever can be taken against his client. I find myself unable to agree to the submission. What the proviso to Sub-Section 4 contemplates is that assessment as made shall be final and there would be no further liability, than what is determined under the assessment. This assessment therefore only determines the quantity of energy consumed and the liability there for. It does hot say that the consumer shall be exonerated of criminal liability after the assessment Liability as determined shall be final and shall in no case be increased beyond that assessment. Section 126 does not speak of compounding on the basis of assessment. Therefore, in no case it could be said that Section 126 is in respect of compounding once an assessment is made. Inspite of assessment therefore the prosecution can be lodged against the persons who commits theft or commits an offence under Sections 135 -and 138. There is a separate section in the indian Electricity Act 2003 which deals with compounding of offences and that is Section 152. Section 152 does permit compounding of offences. Therefore when the legislature thought it fit that there should be separate section for compounding it means that action under section 126 will not debar the electricity company from prosecuting the persons committing the theft. 10. Section 152 does permit compounding of offences. Therefore when the legislature thought it fit that there should be separate section for compounding it means that action under section 126 will not debar the electricity company from prosecuting the persons committing the theft. 10. This takes me to consider whether the F.I.R. discloses an offence or not Along with F.I.R. is filed the copy of the Panchanama prepared when inspection of the meters was taken. In fact F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the panchanama itself. Sections 135 and 138 of the Act read as follows: “Section 135. Theft of electricity (1) whoever dishonestly, (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee: or (b) Tampers a meter installs or uses a tampered meter current reversing transformer. loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or whereby; or (c) Damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damages or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both Provided that in case where the load abstracted, consumed or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use. (i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt the fine imposed or first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity; ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity; Provided further that if it is proved than any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (2) Any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government may (a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity (has been or is being) used unauthorisedly; (b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which (has been or is being) used for unauthorised use of electricity; (c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts there from in his presence. (3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list; Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises. (4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be to searches and seizure under this Act. Section 138 : Interference with meters or works of licensee - Whoever, (a) unauthorisedly connects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line through which electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnected the same from any such electric line; or (b) unauthorisedly reconnects any meter indicator or apparatus with any electric line or other works being the property of a licensee when the said electric line or other works has or have been cut or disconnected; or (c) lays or causes to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to a licensee; or (d) maliciously injures any meter, indicator or apparatus belonging to a licensee or willfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both and, in the case of a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and if it is proved that any means exist for making such connection as is referred to in clause (a) or such reconnection as is referred to in clause (b) or such communication as is referred to in clause (c) for causing such alteration or prevention as is referred to in clause (d) and that the meter, indicator or apparatus is under the custody or control of the consumer, whether it is his property or not, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such connection, reconnection, communication, alteration, prevention or improper use, as the case may be, has been knowingly and willfully caused by such consumer. It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the meter is running slow by 45% and seals were tampered with. It is also further mentioned that theft was committed by connecting in-coming and out-going wires by loop inside the meter. These allegations prima-facie disclose the offence under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the meter is running slow by 45% and seals were tampered with. It is also further mentioned that theft was committed by connecting in-coming and out-going wires by loop inside the meter. These allegations prima-facie disclose the offence under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. Therefore it is not that the F.I.R. does not disclose the offence or that there is no case against the applicants. The question as to who is responsible for the same would be looked into by the criminal Court. The meter is in the name of Kiran and it is now in exclusive custody of applicant Vimala as can be seen from the copy of the panchanama. It cannot be determined here as to who tampered with it and when. That would be the job of the criminal Court. Learned counsel for the applicants had placed before me a case reported in Fatechand Murlidhar Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 1983 Maharashtra Law Journal 292. The facts of the reported case are totally different. In that case the tenant himself had taken the electric connection in his own name and was in exclusive possession of the same premises. It was held that landlord could not be held to be a consumer and would not be liable to pay electricity charges. In the present case meter is in the name of applicant and the other applicant is in exclusive possession or custody of the said meter. Yet another rolling was cited by Shri. Dwivedi which is reported in AIR 1938 Patna 243. In the reported case what is held is that person accused must be a consumer within the meaning of Section (c). Facts of the reported case are also totally different. It is very much clear prima-facie that the meter is in exclusive possession of the client of Mr. Dwivedi and therefore she also becomes answerable to the tampering of the meter. In view of this I do not find any merit in either of the applications. Both are dismissed. Applications dismissed.