Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1051 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal S/o Jagmal Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-04-21

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceeding in Criminal Case No. 02 of 2014 (31 of 2011) State vs. Bhanwar Lal, last order dated 20.05.2011 pending trial in learned Additional Session Judge No. 1, Nagour for the offence under Sections 379, 411 IPC and Section 135, 136 Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The facts as noticed by this Court are that the Vigilance Team inspected the tube well of the petitioner in village Thambadiya, whereby the petitioner was standing and it was found that the some electricity polls, cross arms, pin insulator, disk and wire were found in the custody of the petitioner and FIR was registered against the petitioner. The trial proceeded against the petitioner after filing the charge-sheet and during trial on 29.03.2007, the Assistant Engineer of AVVNL, Khinvsar compounded the case of the petitioner by depositing Rs. 60,000/- in Electricity Department by receipt No. 029312/62 dated 29.03.2007. During trial the fact of the compounding amount been paid in this case was confirmed by the prosecution witness no. 7 Mr. Manoj, who was a concerned Junior Engineer of AVVNL, Khinvsar. In the statement of Shri Manoj, Junior Engineer of AVVNL, Khinvsar, PWD No. 7, it was clearly stated that by receipt No. 029312/62 an amount of Rs. 60,000/- was paid as a compounding fee in the present matter. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to refute the facts stated in the petition and narrated by counsel for the petitioner. The name of the present petitioner also was referred in the statements recorded by the concerned IMO. 4. Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which is quoted as follows: (3) The acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in 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 offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer. 5. (4) The compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per sub-section 3 of Section 152 the acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in 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. 6. In this case it is clearly established that there was an acceptance of some money of compounding of offence with sub-section (1) by the officer empowered only on behalf of Government and therefore, the petitioner stood acquitted within the meaning of Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 7. In light of the fact that the compounding amount has been deposited to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- in Electricity Department by receipt No. 029312/62 dated 29.03.2007 before the concerned Assistant Engineer of AVVNL, Khinvsar, therefore, would attract the provisions of Section 152 of Indian Electricity Act which clearly in its sub-section mentions that such compounding would amount the acquittal within the meaning of Section 300 Cr.P.C. 8. In light of the aforementioned observation, the petition is allowed. 9. The criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 02/2014 (31/2011) State vs. Bhanvar Lal pending trial in learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagour is quashed and set aside.