Javed Iraki vs State And Anr on 25 February, 2019
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Vs.
State of Maharashtra (supra) has held as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 106 (0.72 seconds)Ratan Lal vs State And Anr on 12 April, 2019
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Ganpati Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra) has held as under:-
Virendra Kumar Singhvi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2018
Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above
and the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Suresh
Ganpati Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) relied upon by the
petitioner wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited vs Rampal on 30 June, 2020
In order dated 22.01.2018 made in
Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2018 titled Suresh Ganpati Halvankar
vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Supreme Court has held
that the offence under section 138 of the Electricity Act is a
compoundable offence in the following words :
Sh. Pankaj Jain vs State And Another on 15 February, 2021
In as much as the offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is compoundable in terms of Section 152 of the said
enactment, in view of the catena of verdicts in "NARESH JHANJHI &
ANR VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR" in CRL.M.C.
4179/2015, "SHIV CHARAN VS. THE STATE & ANR" in CRL.M.C.
3176/2015, "RAJESH KUMAR VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF
DELHI & ANR" in CRL.M.C. 4494/2017, "SUDESH MAAN & ANR.
VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR" in CRL.M.C.
5181/2017, "RAVINDER KUMAR VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT
OF DELHI & ANR" in CRL.M.C. 242/2018 and in view of the verdict of
the Apex Court in "SURESH GANPATI HALANKAR VS. THE STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS" dated 22.01.2018 in CRL.A. 156/2018;
and in view of the verdict of judgment of this Court in "ATIF RAZA VS.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR." In CRL.
Surender Kumar Sain vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No.117535
of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2018 (arising out
of
of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3670/2017), titled as Suresh Ganpati
Halvankar versus the State of Maharashtra & Others
rt
has held that the offence punishable under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act, can be compounded under Section 152
of the Electricity Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as under:
" It will be seen that both Sections 135 and
138, which impose a maximum sentence of three
years, both deal with theft of electricity. The
High Court has taken a very narrow view of
Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is
related stricto senso to Section 135 since that
section alone deals with the offence of theft, but
would not specifically refer to Section 138 which
only indirectly relates to the offence of theft.
Both the respondent as well as the petitioner
before us have moved the High Court stating
that Section 138 would also be so subsumed
and have continued to argue the same position
before us. We are of the view that this is correct
in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152
specifically states ......"an offence of theft" which
according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well
as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:25 :::CIS
39 2025:HHC:44126
one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is
substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it
becomes clear that any offence relating to the
theft of electricity is also within the ken of
.
Surender Kumar Sain vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No.117535
of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2018 (arising out
of
of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3670/2017), titled as Suresh Ganpati
Halvankar versus the State of Maharashtra & Others
rt
has held that the offence punishable under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act, can be compounded under Section 152
of the Electricity Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as under:
" It will be seen that both Sections 135 and
138, which impose a maximum sentence of three
years, both deal with theft of electricity. The
High Court has taken a very narrow view of
Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is
related stricto senso to Section 135 since that
section alone deals with the offence of theft, but
would not specifically refer to Section 138 which
only indirectly relates to the offence of theft.
Both the respondent as well as the petitioner
before us have moved the High Court stating
that Section 138 would also be so subsumed
and have continued to argue the same position
before us. We are of the view that this is correct
in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152
specifically states ......"an offence of theft" which
according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well
as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:28 :::CIS
39 2025:HHC:44126
one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is
substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it
becomes clear that any offence relating to the
theft of electricity is also within the ken of
.
Surender Kumar Sain vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No.117535
of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2018 (arising out
of
of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3670/2017), titled as Suresh Ganpati
Halvankar versus the State of Maharashtra & Others
rt
has held that the offence punishable under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act, can be compounded under Section 152
of the Electricity Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as under:
" It will be seen that both Sections 135 and
138, which impose a maximum sentence of three
years, both deal with theft of electricity. The
High Court has taken a very narrow view of
Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is
related stricto senso to Section 135 since that
section alone deals with the offence of theft, but
would not specifically refer to Section 138 which
only indirectly relates to the offence of theft.
Both the respondent as well as the petitioner
before us have moved the High Court stating
that Section 138 would also be so subsumed
and have continued to argue the same position
before us. We are of the view that this is correct
in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152
specifically states ......"an offence of theft" which
according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well
as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:39 :::CIS
39 2025:HHC:44126
one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is
substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it
becomes clear that any offence relating to the
theft of electricity is also within the ken of
.
Surender Kumar Sain vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No.117535
of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2018 (arising out
of
of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3670/2017), titled as Suresh Ganpati
Halvankar versus the State of Maharashtra & Others
rt
has held that the offence punishable under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act, can be compounded under Section 152
of the Electricity Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as under:
" It will be seen that both Sections 135 and
138, which impose a maximum sentence of three
years, both deal with theft of electricity. The
High Court has taken a very narrow view of
Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is
related stricto senso to Section 135 since that
section alone deals with the offence of theft, but
would not specifically refer to Section 138 which
only indirectly relates to the offence of theft.
Both the respondent as well as the petitioner
before us have moved the High Court stating
that Section 138 would also be so subsumed
and have continued to argue the same position
before us. We are of the view that this is correct
in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152
specifically states ......"an offence of theft" which
according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well
as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS
39 2025:HHC:44126
one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is
substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it
becomes clear that any offence relating to the
theft of electricity is also within the ken of
.
Khushboo vs The State & Anr on 16 December, 2021
It is submitted on behalf of the State that in view of the settlement
arrived at between the parties, there is no opposition to the prayer made by
the petitioner seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 200/2021, Police Station
Mehrauli registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 taking
into account the factum that the offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is compoundable in terms of Section 152 of the said
enactment and no dues certificate has been issued by the respondent No.2 in
view of the catena of verdicts in "NARESH JHANJHI & ANR VS.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR" in CRL.M.C. 4179/2015, "SHIV
CHARAN VS. THE STATE & ANR" in CRL.M.C. 3176/2015,
"RAJESH KUMAR VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI &
ANR" in CRL.M.C. 4494/2017, "SUDESH MAAN & ANR. VS. THE
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR" in CRL.M.C. 5181/2017,
"RAVINDER KUMAR VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR" in CRL.M.C. 242/2018 and in view of the verdict of the Apex
Court in "SURESH GANPATI HALANKAR VS. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS" dated 22.01.2018 in CRL.A. 156/2018; and in
view of the verdict of judgment of this Court in "ATIF RAZA VS. STATE
(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR." In CRL.