JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the second respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Letter No.AEE/O & M/TVKY/ENFT/15-16 daetd 22.03.2016 and quashing the same.) 1. The petitioner is a farmer having a small piece of land to an extent of 33.35 cents in S.No.216/4 in Karumalai Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. He is having an electricity connection for this land and an electric motor for pumping water from his well. There was an inspection conducted by the respondent electricity Board on 26.02.2016 at about 04.30 pm and it was found that the meter was by-passed with an artificial means. Therefore, this petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- for compounding of the offence of electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner apprehending arrest, has paid the compounding charges. Thereafter the respondents have issued this impugned order dated 22.03.2016 calculating the loss due to the unauthorised use of the energy as Rs.1,93,015/- and directed this petitioner to pay the said amount within a period of seven days. Challenging the same this writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a farmer and he was not aware of the installation of artificial equipment in the electricity meter. He also claims that his son might have done this and therefore, he pleads innocence. The respondents have intimidated the petitioner that he would be arrested along with his son and therefore, in order to avoid the arrest and without understanding the issue, he has paid the amount of Rs.16,000/- on 27.12.2016. Now by the order impugned, the respondents have calculated the loss for 365 days and has imposed a sum of Rs.1,93,015/- as penalty. 3. He further submits that the value of land itself is Rs.80,000/- and the petitioner has used the electric motor for irrigating the tomato crop, cultivated in his land and he would be irrigating the crops once in a week, approximately for 2 to 4 hours per day for a period six months. Therefore, according to him, even if it is calculated as per Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act, only a sum of Rs.23,099.32 alone can be charged. Therefore, according to him, even if it is calculated as per Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act, only a sum of Rs.23,099.32 alone can be charged. However, without ascertaining the nature of cultivation, the respondents have calculated the penalty 12 hours per day for a period of 365 days. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the respondents are exorbitant and is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent electricity Board submits that the Anti Power Theft Squad had conducted an inspection in the petitioner's electricity connection on 26.02.2016 and found that the petitioner has involved in theft of energy by by-passing the meter. The petitioner was provided with a single phase power supply under Tariff -V with a permitted load of 1.2KW. However, the same was converted into two phase power supply by using the conversion equipment with a load of 3.3KW, without obtaining prior permission from the electricity board. 5. He further submits that the petitioner has admitted the guilt and paid the compounding charges as per Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Once the petitioner has admitted that he has committed the theft of energy, he is liable to be proceeded under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the respondents issued Forms 9 and 10 under regulation 23 (AA) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The petitioner is a marginal farmer having a piece of land to an extent of 33.3 cents, wherein he had been doing cultivation. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the respondent Board had conducted an inspection and found that there was some artificial equipment fitted in the electricity meter of the petitioner. Extracting electricity by way using an artificial equipment is an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. However Section 152 of the Electricity Act provides for compounding of an offence. The petitioner has paid the compounding charges on 27.02.2016 to avoid penal consequences. Now the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. If anybody commits theft of energy, he is liable to be punished under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner has paid the compounding charges on 27.02.2016 to avoid penal consequences. Now the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. If anybody commits theft of energy, he is liable to be punished under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner had admitted the offence, paid the compounding charges and also admitted the same in this writ petition that his son has played mischief without the knowledge of this petitioner. 8. This Court while entertaining this writ petition in the year 2016 by order dated 14.06.2014 granted an interim order directing the respondents to restore the electricity service connection subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents. The petitioner also claims that the had paid this amount. 9. The petitioner alleges that the penalty amount has been not properly calculated as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The respondents claim that the amount was calculated only as per the Regulation 23 AA of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and the petitioner was also provided with an opportunity of hearing. 10. Once theft of energy is committed, it is an offence. The petitioner in this case has also admitted that there was tampering in the meter by using artificial equipment. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In the result, this writ petition dismissed. However, considering the claim of the petitioner that he is a farmer, he has also paid the compounding charges and also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as directed by this Court, the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the remaining penalty amount into 12 equal monthly installments, commencing from February 2024. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.