Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Bajaj vs State Of Jharkhand on 24 June, 2015
Author: D. N. Upadhyay
Bench: D. N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1378 of 2003
Ajay Bajaj ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite party
with
Cr.M.P. No.1350 of 2003
D.K.Gupta ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s -
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Superintending Engineer,
D.V.C., Hazaribagh ... ... Opposite parties
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
For the Petitioners :None.(Cr.M.P. 1378/03)
Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate.(Cr.M.P. 1350/03)
For the State :Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate(in all cases)
For D.V.C. :Mr. S.K.Ughal & T. Kabiraj, Advocates(in all cases)
-----
11/24.06.2015These petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 30.05.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Koderma(Town) P.S. Case no.290 of 2001(G.R. Case no.482 of 2001), whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 39/44 of the Electricity Act against the petitioners.
2. The fact reveals from the First Information Report is that on 06.10.2000, in between 13 hours to 14 hours, the check meter installed at D.V.C. Koderma Sub Station, Bishunpur for measuring KWH(Unit) consumption of electricity consumed by the consumers of D.V.C. i.e. M/s. Super Steel Casting Limited and M/s. Balajee Electro Steel Limited found stopped functioning and A.M meter recording the Amperage for the said consumers also stopped functioning. Subsequently, on the next date i.e. on 4.10.2000 at about 10.40 hours, the aforesaid check meter as well as A.M.meter started functioning. Suspecting pilferage, investigation was carried out by the engineers and officers of DVC and it was detected that both the metering and protection current transformer (C.T.) cables each carrying four numbers copper wires separately insulated and jointly armored as well as insulated from C.T. junction box in the cable trench between 3rd and 4th covering slab were found uninsulated and .2.
unarmored for the length of about 8" but the same portion was found wrapped with PVC insulating tape. There was huge difference in consumption pattern as noticed by the authority concerned.
3. The matter was investigated into but the Investigating Officer has submitted Final Form disclosing insufficient evidence. The protest petition was filed by the informant and learned C.J.M., koderma after considering the evidence collected in the case diary passed impugned order by which cognizance under section 379 I.P.C. and section 39/44 of the Electricity Act has been taken.
4. It is submitted that neither tampering in the check meter installed within the premises of M/s. Super Steel Casting Limited was found nor evidence was collected that aforesaid company has committed theft of electric energy. It is further submitted that during aforesaid period, consumption of the unit was enhanced from 3000 and 8300 KVA. In between certain period, repairing works were also carried out, that might be a reason for difference in consumption. Only suspicion, that difference was noticed in the consumption pattern, the petitioner could not be liable to be prosecuted for the offences alleged. Learned C.J.M. has relied upon the evidence collected by I.O. and that somehow indicates mischief committed by the officer of DVC, but no action has been taken against the said officer. From the evidence collected in the case diary, it is not clear as to how and in what manner the petitioner has committed theft of energy and what was the loss caused to DVC. In the circumstances stated above, the petitioners are not required to be put on trial and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Cr.M.P. No.378 of 2003On the last occasion, when the case was called out, nobody appeared. Today also, nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner on call.
5. Learned counsel for the DVC and the State have opposed the prayer and submitted that learned C.J.M. has passed a reasoned order after going through the case diary. Not only that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation has been referred para wise. It is apparent from the evidence available in the case diary that theft of electric energy was committed. Tampering in the trench and cable was detected. The check meters installed within the premises of the petitioners were found stopped and that clearly indicates that theft of electrical energy was done, may be in connivance with the officers of DVC. So far as defence taken by the .3.
petitioners is concerned, that is a matter to be considered during trial. Since the evidence collected by I.O. and material available on record are almost same, in both the petitions, appearance or non- appearance of the counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. no.1378 of 2003 makes no difference.
6. Be that as it may, the informant has made protest after submission of Final Form. The parties were given opportunity of hearing. Learned C.J.M. before passing the order impugned, appears to have gone through the evidence collected in the case diary because relevant paragraphs relied upon, find mentioned in the said order. So far as invoking the inherent jurisdiction conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court has to see whether order under challenge is apparently illegal and causing miscarriage of justice ? The defence of the accused as well as facts and circumstances of the case are subject matter of trial.
7. I have gone through the impugned order, First Information Report as well as xerox copy of case diary. I do not find any inconsistency in it and the impugned order is well reasoned. In the circumstances indicated above, I do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.
8. Interim order by which proceeding of Koderma P.S. case no.290 of 2001(G.R. no.482 of 2001), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has been ordered to be stayed stands vacated.
9. Learned trial court after receipt of this order shall immediately take steps to secure attendance of accused persons and for that learned trial court shall be at liberty to issue process, if the accused persons did not appear within a reasonable time.
10. The observation made by this Court shall not cause prejudice to any of the parties during trial. Petitioners shall be at liberty to place all the material available with them before the trial court and the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order independently on the basis of materials placed before it.
(D. N. Upadhyay, J.) s.b