Patna High Court
Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 17 August, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11453 OF 2001
-------
In the matter of an application under section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-------
1.BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through
its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2.The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply
Division, Dehri-on-sone, Dist.-Rohtas.
....... .......Petitioners
Versus
1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
2.Shri Jitendra Narain Singh son of Shri Ram
Ashish Singh, Proprietor of Chaturbhuj Stone
Company, Amra Talab, resident of village and
P.O.-Jamuhar. P.S.-Dehri, Dist.-Rohtas.
....... .......Opp.Parties.
------
For the petitioners: Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh
For the State: Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P.
-------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
-------
Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioners-Bihar State Electricity Board and its
officials, while exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for
quashing of an order dated 6.1.2001 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (M) P.S. Case
No.555 of 2000 registered for the offences under sections 39 and
44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate on the prayer made by opposite party no.2, who was
accused in Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No.555 of 2000, had directed
the Electricity Board for restoring the electric connection of
opposite party no.2.
2. Short fact of the case is that on 21.9.2000 on the
basis of written report of the Junior Electrical Engineer, Electrical
Supply Section, Karwandia a first information report vide Sasaram
2
(M) P.S. Case No.555 of 2000 was registered against the
proprietor of M/s Chaturbhuj Stone Company. A raid was
conducted in anti theft drive in the premises of M/s Chaturbhuj
Stone Company. It was found that electric connection of M/s
Chaturbhuj Stone Company was disconnected in the month of
May, 1999 due to non-payment of Rs.59,609/-. The said raid was
conducted on 21.9.2000. It was found that electric energy was
illegally connected by the accused persons from a transformer and
due to such illegal extraction of electric energy, the Electricity
Board had suffered a loss of Rs.2,70,000/-. After the case was
registered, the opposite party no.2 filed a petition for grant of
anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Sasaram. The learned
Sessions Judge initially directed the opposite party no.2 to deposit
Rs.10,000/- in the account of Electricity Board. In the meanwhile,
the opposite party no.2 filed a surrender-cum-bail petition in the
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasarm. On
18.10.2000 while surrendering it was submitted on behalf of
opposite party no.2-accused that a loss of Rs.59,609/- had
occurred to the Electricity Board and in compliance with the order
of the learned Sessions Judge, Sasaram he had already deposited
Rs.10,000/- and rest amount shall be deposited in installment of
Rs.10,000/- within six months. Accordingly, the opposite party
no.2 was enlarged on bail. After being released on bail and even
while an amount of Rs.19,609/- was outstanding, as per the
averments made by opposite party no.2, a petition was filed on his
behalf for giving direction to Electricity Board for restoring the
electric connection and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
3
allowed the petition by its order dated 6.1.2001 and directed the
Electricity Board to restore the connection of opposite party no.2
with a condition that he will deposit the balance amount within the
stipulated time.
3, Aggrieved with the order dated 6.1.2001, the
Electricity Board approached this court by filing the present
petition. On 14.12.2001 this court directed for issuance of notice
to opposite party no.2. Even after issuance of notice and its
service, opposite party no.2 did not appear and, as such, on
27.6.2002 the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed
that during the pendency of this application order dated 6.1.2002
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram,
directing the petitioners to restore the electricity shall remain
stayed. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
4. Mr.Vinay Kriti Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the order for direction of
restoring electric connection in favour of opposite party no.2 was
palpably illegal and wrong and is liable to be set aside. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 24(1) of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which is as follows:
24(1).Discontinuance of supply of consumer
neglecting to pay charge: Where any
person neglects to pay any charge for
energy or any sum, other than a charge
for energy, due from him to a licensee
in respect of the supply of energy to
him, the licensee may, after giving not
less than seven clear days' notice in
writing to such person and without
prejudice to his right to recover such
charge or other sum by suit, cut off the
supply and for that purpose cut or
disconnect any electric supply-line or
other works, being the property of the
licensee, through which energy may be
4
supplied, and may discontinue the
supply until such charge or other sum,
together with any expenses incurred by
him in cutting off and re-connecting the
supply, are paid, but no longer."
5. While referring the aforesaid provision, it was
submitted that in a case of detection of theft of electricity, it is
upto the Electricity Board to disconnect the electric supply. It was
submitted that after disconnection it will be calculated in
accordance with law as to how much loss was suffered and the
same amount shall be realized from the consumer and unless the
amount is deposited, the connection may not be restored. It was
submitted that for the purpose of restoration of connection the
learned Magistrate was not having any jurisdiction or
authorization to direct the Electricity Board to restore the line
while hearing a bail petition. It was submitted that while even
granting bail, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to impose
conditions beyond the provisions contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The direction for restoration of electric
supply was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and,
as such, the order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside.
6. Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,
appearing on behalf of the State, has reiterated the views
expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I
have also perused the materials available on the record. The court
is satisfied that the learned Magistrate had committed a serious
error while directing the Electricity Board to restore the electric
connection. The learned Magistrate completely failed to appreciate
5
that electric supply of opposite party no.2 was disconnected in the
month of May, 1999 due to the reason that he had not paid dues of
Rs.59,609/- to the electricity Board. The learned Magistrate failed
to examine that even though electric supply was disconnected in
the year 1999, on a raid conducted by the Electricity Board on
21.9.2000, opposite party no.2 was found committing theft of electricity and due to such action the Electricity Board had suffered a loss of Rs.2,70,000/-. Moreover, power of restoration was within the jurisdiction of the official of the Electricity Board and not with the learned Magistrate while exercising its criminal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court is of the view that the order dated 6.1.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasarm is not sustainable in the eye of law.
8. In the result, the order dated 6.1.2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No.555 of 2000 is set aside and the petition stands allowed.
Patna High Court (Rakesh Kumar,J.) The 17th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR