Delhi High Court
North Delhi Power Limited vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 2 May, 2008
Author: S. Muralidhar
Bench: S. Muralidhar
JUDGMENT S. Muralidhar, J.
1. Respondent No. 2 is deleted from the array of the parties.
2. This is a petition directed against the order dated 24th August, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') (Electricity) in S.C. No. 05/06 arising out of the FIR No. 299/06 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 ('IE Act') registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi to the extent that while acquitting the accused in the case, a direction was issued to the complainant, North Delhi Power Limited ('NDPL') the Petitioner here 'to file a complaint in respect of the third raid within ten days from today positively.'
3. The background to the filing of the present petition is that the raid was conducted on 16th September 2006 by an authorized inspection team of NDPL at the premises No. 21, Raj Niwas Marg, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi on a suspicion that theft of electricity was taking place. The inspection revealed that one Mohd. Aslam was indulging in theft of electricity. On that basis an FIR No. 299 of 2006 was got registered at Police Station Civil Lines and the accused was arrested. In the course of the trial, during the cross-examination of the witnesses for the NDPL, it transpired that three different cases of direct theft of electricity in respect of the same premises was booked whereas the FIR has been registered only in two cases. It was explained by PW-1 Shri H.C. Sharma, Manager Enforcement, NDPL that 'no FIR had been lodged in the third case since the load was below 10 KW and that case is lying in their EAC department for further processing.' The learned ASJ appears to have come to the conclusion that 'by not getting the FIR registered in respect of the third premises on the ground that the load was found below 10 KW is most reprehensible and is also liable to be discarded with full force and strength.' The ASJ expressed the hope that 'the officers of NDPL would no more act in such an arbitrary, capricious and partial manner.'
4. This led to the direction as extracted in para 1 above, even while the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 135 IE Act.
5. It is pointed out by Mr. Nandrajog, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the learned ASJ has passed a further order on 5th September 2007 giving a general direction asking the NDPL to 'file the rule under which they do not get the cases registered where the theft of electricity or DAE is found to be less than 10 KW.' Further the ASJ directed them to 'file a list of cases where they had/have got the FIRs registered so that the Court may see whether this police is being adopted consistently or not or whether there is nay departure from the same and, if so, for what reasons.'
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in a large number of theft cases where the load is less than 10 KW, efforts are being made to get the consumer to settle the matter by paying the bills with a view to avoiding the litigation. Even where a criminal case is registered, if the consumers offer to pay the entire dues, then in many cases the criminal proceedings are agreed to be dropped. He submits that in respect of the third case of theft that was booked in respect of the premises the process of exploring the possibility of getting the consumer to pay the bills was in progress and therefore, no FIR was registered straightway. This was what was sought to be explained by Shri H.C. Sharma, PW-1 in the trial court. He further submits that directions issued by the learned ASJ were beyond the scope of the powers of that court and are unsustainable in law. He further submits that as regards the direction for making a list of cases where the FIR has been registered such a list is in fact being provided to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission in terms of regulation 43 of the Metering and Billing Regulations 2003.
7. Ms. Gupta, learned Senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that neither the Electricity Act, 2003 nor the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enabled the criminal court to travel beyond the case that is being tried by it and give general directions about other FIRs or criminal complaints and in particular give a direction that a criminal complaint should be filed before a Court in a particular case. She points out that if the NDPL was aggrieved by the failure to investigate in a particular complaint then it would be open to the NDPL to initiate the complaint procedure under the CrPC before the Criminal Court. Independent of this it was not open for this Court to give direction to NDPL to file a complaint before it in respect of a particular case.
8. This Court is unable to disconcern any legal basis for the direction passed by the learned ASJ in the impugned judgment dated 24th August 2007 directing the NDPL to file a complaint in respect of the third theft raid that was booked pursuant to the raid conducted at the premises in question on 16th September 2006.
9. Learned Counsel for the parties are justified in their submissions that the direction issued by the learned Special Judge was entirely decided beyond the scope of the powers of the Special Court under the Electricity Act, 2003. There was no legal basis for directing NDPL to file a complaint in the Special Court in respect of a particular incident.
10. There is, therefore, no difficulty in setting aside the direction, issued in the impugned judgment dated 24th August 2007, to the NDPL to file a complaint in respect of the third theft case. Even the direction issued in the order dated 5th September 2007 directing the NDPL to file a list of cases where the FIR has been registered appears to be a general direction and not in relation to a particular case. There appears to be no legal basis for such a direction either. Therefore, the said direction as contained in the order dated 5th September 2007 of learned Special Judge is also hereby set aside.
11. The petition is allowed and the pending application is disposed of.