Supreme Court Remands Electricity Theft Case for Review Under Section 152 of Electricity Act: Mukesh Chand vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2019)

Date of the Judgment: March 12, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 198

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a settlement reached in a Lok Adalat for an electricity theft case automatically quash the criminal proceedings? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving a consumer accused of electricity theft. The core issue was whether the High Court was right in dismissing the petition to quash the FIR, without considering the provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which deals with the compounding of offenses. This judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, clarifies the procedure for settling such cases.

Case Background

The appellant, Mukesh Chand, was an electricity consumer who had a connection from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BSES) for his business. On September 22, 2014, BSES sent him a bill for ₹3,54,598.21, alleging that he had committed electricity theft. When the appellant failed to pay, BSES filed a First Information Report (FIR) against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking his prosecution for electricity theft. A notice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was also issued to him.

Subsequently, the appellant and BSES reached a settlement in a Special Lok Adalat on February 11, 2018, for a total sum of ₹1,60,000. The Lok Adalat passed an order to this effect, and the appellant claims to have paid the agreed amount in two installments. Following this settlement, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the High Court of Delhi, seeking to quash the FIR filed against him.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appellant’s petition seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court did not examine the issue in light of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appellant then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 135 and Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with the “theft of electricity.” It states:

“Whoever, dishonestly,-
(a) taps, or makes any connection with overhead, underground or underwater lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, looping or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in abstraction of electricity; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, 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.”

Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, deals with the “compounding of offences”. It states:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any offence punishable under this Act, whether committed by a company or other person, may be compounded by the authority specified in sub-section (2) either before or after the institution of the prosecution, on payment to the licensee or the State Government, as the case may be, of such sum as that authority may specify:
Provided that the sum specified shall not, in any case, exceed the maximum amount of the fine which could have been imposed for the offence in question.
(2) The power to compound an offence under sub-section (1) shall be exercisable by such officer or authority as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf:
Provided that in the case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years, no offence shall be compounded.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the settlement in the Lok Adalat should be honored.
• He emphasized that BSES had agreed to withdraw all cases against him as part of the settlement.
• The appellant contended that the FIR and the criminal case should be quashed in light of the settlement.

Respondent’s (BSES) Arguments:

• BSES argued that the matter must be decided keeping in view the requirements of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• They contended that the settlement in Lok Adalat cannot override the statutory requirements for compounding offenses under the Electricity Act.

Respondent (State) Arguments:

• The State argued that the issue needs to be decided in light of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which deals with compounding of offenses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but focused on whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition without considering Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Court primarily considered Section 135 and Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural aspect. The court observed that the High Court had not considered the provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which deals with compounding of offenses. The Court stated that the issue needed to be decided in light of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that statutory procedures, specifically those outlined in Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, are followed. The Court emphasized that settlements, even those reached in Lok Adalats, cannot override the explicit requirements of the law regarding the compounding of offenses. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had not considered this crucial aspect of the law, which necessitated a remand for a fresh review.

The Court observed, “Since we find that the High Court did not examine the issue in the light of Section 152 of the Act, we consider it proper to remand the case to the High Court to examine the issue afresh keeping in view the provisions of Section 152 of the Act…”

The Court also clarified, “We make it clear that having formed an opinion to remand the case, we have not applied our mind to the merits of the case.”

The Court further added, “The High Court will, therefore, decide the matter strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by us in this order.”

Key Takeaways

• Settlements in Lok Adalats for electricity theft cases must comply with Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• High Courts must consider the provisions for compounding of offenses under Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, before deciding on quashing FIRs related to electricity theft.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory procedures even when settlements are reached.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to re-examine the case, keeping in view the provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that settlements in Lok Adalats for offences under the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly those related to theft of electricity, must comply with the statutory requirements for compounding of offences as stipulated under Section 152 of the Act. This judgment clarifies that such settlements cannot bypass the legal framework established for compounding offences and emphasizes the need for judicial review in light of specific statutory provisions. This is not a change in law but a clarification on the procedure to be followed in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mukesh Chand vs. The State (NCT) of Delhi clarifies that settlements in electricity theft cases must adhere to Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of statutory compliance in such matters.