Compounding offence
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 10 June 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear Members,
In our multi storied building the TNEB had provided separate meter for recording the usage of electricity for swimming pool, gymnastic equipment, conference hall etc.The Association was charged on normal rates for residential use.
By end of the month of May this year a TNEB official visited the building and told the association that the usage of the equipment falls on commercial category.He levied new charges at revised rate and collected money on retrospective basis.
Not only that, he also asked association to pay compounding offence fee of Rs 12,000.The association paid.
All these were on oral demand without any written notice.
Will paying compounding offence fee amount to acceptance of guilt that the association knew it was doing a wrong thing ie doing commercial activity in residential zone.?
Phani Kumar. D
(Expert) 12 June 2013
Yes, it is deemed to be acceptance of offence, when compounding offence fee paid to any department or authority as specified Act/Law.
RAJENDRAN K.M. 09443050520
(Expert) 12 June 2013
usage of electricity for swimming pool, gymnastic equipment, conference hall etc are treated as commercial service.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 June 2013
You have rightly been charged with the arrears and compounding is definitely an acceptance.
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 13 June 2013
Dear Raj Kumar,
Thanks for your reply.
The assessment of charges for usage of power by Gim and swimming pool was made from the readings in meter connected to the connection from 2003 on wards by the electrical board officials. A label in the meter also shows it is for Gim and Swimming pool. After a lapse of 10 years the officials are saying the association has misused the connection to area that was not covered by tariff for which they are charged. The question of compounding offence fee comes only if the connection is deliberately misused without knowledge of electrical board staff. How the EB official can justify compounding offence charge? The association paid the fee of 12000 and came to know why the money is collected only when the receipt came after two days that said the money is adjusted in the account of Compounding offence.Additional amount of Rs 1,05,000 were paid for extra levy.
I am giving a Judgment of Madras HC that dealt with compounding offence.
People accused of theft of energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 cannot escape from their civil liability to pay the assessed charges, in exchange for restoration of power supply irrespective of the fact whether they choose to compound (forbear prosecution in exchange for money) the criminal offences or not, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian passed the ruling while disposing of a batch of 29 writ petitions filed by individuals who were accused of using domestic power connections for commercial purposes, tampering of meters or using agricultural service connections for non- agricultural purposes. They had challenged provisional as well as final assessment notifications issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
The judge held that a Special Court trying the case under Section 135 could determine the criminal liability as well as civil liability of an accused who chooses to face criminal prosecution without compounding the offence. On the other hand, if the offence was compounded thereby ousting thejurisdiction of the Special Court then the TNEB officials could determine the civil liability and recover it as a sine quo non for restoration of power supply. The present petitioners had contended that the legislation draws a distinction between mere unauthorized use of electricity without a dishonest intention under Section 126 and intentional theft of energy under Section 135. There can be assessment and recovery of charges only in the case of Section 126 and not Section 135 which leads to criminal prosecution ending up either in acquittal or conviction, they claimed. Rejecting their contention, the judge pointed out that a look at Section 135(1) in isolation would give an impression as though there was no question of assessment under the Section though it empowers the Special Court trying the offence to order for imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years as well as imposition of fine to the extent of three to six times the financial gain made by the accused depending upon the quantum of power stolen.
However, the doubt regarding assessment in cases of theft got cleared after the introduction of proviso 1-A to Section 135 of the Act by way of an amendment in the year 2007. The new proviso made it mandatory for the authorities concerned to disconnect power supply immediately upon detection of theft of energy. They could also restore power supply if the accused deposits the assessed amount.
The association does not bother about levy of extra charges but do not want to be labeled as offender. Is it worth going to court for getting out labeled considering the money to be spent for the litigation?
