State Commission has non-suited the petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds : “iii) Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2003) not only defines theft of energy but also prescribes the punishment of three years or fine or both. Section 152 of the Act, 2003 empowers an appropriate Government or any officer authorized by it to compound the offence in the manner detailed therein. Admittedly, in this case no F.I.R. has been registered against the complainant with regard to the allegations made on the basis of inspection report dated 28.8.2005. It is not explainable as to how a notice under Section 135 read with Section 152 of the Act, 2003 bearing Memo No.1870 dated 30.8.2005 giving an offer of compounding of the offence of theft, whereby demand of Rs.1,60,000+700 had been determined to be payable by him as detailed in the notice, has been issued to him. The above mentioned notice served upon the complainant reads as under:-- Subject: Amount levied on account of theft of electricity. Dear Sir, Your premises Ram Kishan (given complete address and also A/c No. in case the person is a consumer) was inspected by XEN Enforcement give name & exact designation of the authorized Officer/official) on dated 28.8.05 at Hansi (AM/PM). During above inspection the following act(s) of dishonest use of electricity ------------- by the authorized officer:-- On the checking all the M&T seals found tampered, it is a case of theft. The memorandum of inspection and seizure was duly handed over to you Sh. Ram Kishan being present at the time of such inspection. The above facts indicate that you have been indulging in theft of electricity. Accordingly, undersigned has compounded the offence of theft of electricity amounting to Rs.1,60,000+700 to be paid by you for the above act(s). Details of amount are as under=SCAR No.36/119. Stamp & Signatures of Assessing Officer” The reading of the above notice would show that altogether illegal procedure of law has been adopted by the S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division as the Assessing Officer because he had already determined the penalty after coming to the conclusion that theft of energy had been committed. It is not even the case of the opposite parties that the complainant had approached the opposite parties for compounding of the offence. It means that unilaterally the opposite parties at the first instance had passed the order of assessment taking it a case of compounding of the offence and then giving an option to the complainant for compounding the same. It cannot be ignored that the complainant by filing the complaint had challenged the legality of the demand as per Memo No.1870 dated 30.8.2005.” Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that a similar order passed by the State Commission was upheld by this Commission against which the petitioner had filed SLP which has been dismissed. In view of this, he does not press this Revision Petition. Dismissed as not pressed. | 
