Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 800 (ALL)

DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-04-04

J.J.MUNIR

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the Power Corporation and learned AGA on behalf of the State. 2. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought seeking to quash the proceeding of Case No. 218 of 2015 ‘State v. Dinesh Kumar’ (arising out of Case Crime No. 831 of 2014) under Section 135 Electricity Act, P.S. Kailiya, District Jalaun pending in the Court of Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Jalaun at Orai. 3. The submission the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Jalaun at Orai vide his letter dated 9.9.2014 addressed to the Special Judge, (E.C.) Act, Jalaun at Orai has informed the Court that the applicant has deposited outstandings of electricity dues assessed in the sum of Rs. 4605/- acknowledged by receipt No. 21/469996 dated 6.9.2014 and further deposited compounding charges in the sum of Rs. 4000/- acknowledged by receipt No. 17/485121 dated 6.9.2014. He has made a request through the said letter that the applicant may be exonerated. A copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure 2 to the affidavit in support of the present application. 4. 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) 5. (4) The compounding of an offenc under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer. (Emphasis by Court) 5. 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. 6. Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the corporation on instruction received from opposite party No. 2 and the other competent authorities of the distribution 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 charge against the relieving provisions to Section 152 of the Act. 7. In view of the said facts the impugned charge-sheet and proceedings of Case No. 218 of 2015 ‘State v. Dinesh Kumar’ (arising out of Case Crime No. 831 of 2014) under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, P.S. Kailiya District Jalaun pending before the Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Jalaun at Orai cannot be permitted to continue. 8. Accordingly, this Application stands allowed. 9. 8. Accordingly, this Application stands allowed. 9. The impugned charge-sheet dated 25.7.2014 giving rise to the Case No. 218 of 2015 ‘State v. Dinesh Kumar’ (arising out of Case Crime No. 831 of 2014) under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, P.S. Kailiya District Jalaun pending before the Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Jalaun at Orai is hereby quashed. 10. It is directed that an entry to the effect that the entire proceedings of this case have been quashed under orders of this Court shall be made in the general diary of police station Kailiya District Jalaun at Orai. 11. Learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act shall enforce this part of order requiring appropriate entry to be made in general diary of police station concerned as directed above. 12. Before parting with this matter, this Court is constrained to notice that the Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-I, Jalaun at Orai has addressed a letter to the learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act Jalaun at Orai 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-I, Jalaun at Orai shall bear caution not to repeat this practice of writing letters to the Courts in future. 13. The learned District Judge, Jalaun at Orai and the learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act Jalaun at Orai will also enforce appropriate discipline in regard to proceedings in Court in context of what has been said hereinabove. 14. Let a copy of this order be certified to the learned District Judge and the learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act Jalaun at Orai forthwith by the office for necessary compliance.