4 days ago
Part payment of dues no shield from criminal prosecution: HC
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court refused to quash an FIR for power theft against the promoters of Chiripal Industries and trustees of Shanti Asiatic School in Surat, stating that payment of dues does not exempt individuals from criminal prosecution in electricity theft cases.
According to the case details, Milestone Education Trust runs the Shanti Asiatic School in Surat, where a raid by the Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co Ltd (DGVCL) reportedly revealed power theft in Dec 2012. The power company issued a bill and later revised it to Rs 76.72 lakh for usage and Rs 10.88 lakh for compounding charges. It also filed an FIR under the Electricity Act against trustees Vedprakash Chiripal, Jyotiprasad Chiripal, and Deshbhushan Singhal.
The trust filed a civil suit, and the court ordered the restoration of electricity supply upon the trust depositing Rs 80 lakh. The HC reduced the deposit amount to Rs 60 lakh so that the academic activities continued unhindered.
You Can Also Check:
Ahmedabad AQI
|
Weather in Ahmedabad
|
Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad
|
Public Holidays in Ahmedabad
In 2017, the trustees approached the high court challenging the FIR on the grounds that the invocation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of process because the dispute was of a civil nature, and they expressed willingness to pay the amount levied by DGVCL.
However, the power company declined to accept the compounding amount.
After hearing the case, Justice J C Doshi rejected the petition for quashing of criminal charges and stated, "A consumer cannot assert that payment of a substantial portion of the assessed amount under a supplementary bill extinguishes or absolves him of the criminal consequences under the Act, as both liabilities operate in different and independent spheres."
The HC further stated, "If the petitioner–consumer intends to compound the offence, he is obligated to comply with the specific compounding demand as determined and communicated by the electricity company. Merely offering to deposit a part-payment of the amount or relying on deposits made pursuant to civil proceedings does not entitle the accused to automatic compounding of the criminal case."
