Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Bajaj vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2016
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3328 of 2015
----
Ajay Bajaj, S/o Sri Purushottam Das, R/o Bajaj Niwas, Kankarbagh,
Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna, Bihar.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkatta.
...Opposite Parties
--------
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Deo, APP
For DVC : Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate
--------
09/12-04-2016Heard the parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 290 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 482 of 2001, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
An FIR was instituted by the Junior Divisional Engineer, D.V.C., Hazaribagh, in which it was alleged that the check meter installed at D.V.C. Koderma Sub Station, Bishunpur for measuring KWH (Unit) consumption of electricity consumed by the consumer of D.V.C. i.e. M/s Super Steel Casting Limited and M/s Balajee Electro Steel Limited stopped functioning and A.M. Meter recording the Amperage for the said consumers also stopped functioning. It is alleged that on 4.10.2000, the check meter as well as A.M. Meter started functioning and suspecting pilferage investigation was carried out by a team of engineers and officers of D.V.C. wherein it was detected that there was huge difference in the consumption pattern as noticed by the informant and therefore it was concluded that since there was theft of electricity being carried out by the said two companies, the FIR was instituted.
After investigation, police had submitted final form but on protest petition filed by the Corporation, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 & 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s Balajee Electro steels Ltd. and -2- the petitioner did not have any concern with the alleged pilferage or theft of electricity, which was detected in D.V.C. Koderma Sub Station, Bishunpur. It has been submitted that no inspection had been carried out at the premises of the petitioner and only on the basis of inspection in D.V.C. Koderma Sub Station, Bishunpur, wherein some difference was found in consumption pattern, the same could not be a conclusive factor to suggest that the company of the petitioner was involved in theft of electricity. It has further been submitted that even the loss which is alleged to have caused has not been properly assessed. It has also been submitted that in terms of section 49A of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, a Company having not been made an accused, the petitioner being the Director of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable for any offence committed by the Company.
Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 has submitted that after the final form was submitted, a detailed protest petition was filed on behalf of the Corporation, in which loss caused to the DVC was assessed to be approximately Rupees One Crore and considering the protest petition as well as the investigation carried out by the police, cognizance was taken by a detailed order on 30.05.2003. It has been submitted that several officers of testing parties were examined in course of investigation and it has been consistently stated that there was a tampering of the meters in D.V.C. Koderma Sub Station, Bishunpur, which was caused by M/s Balajee Electro Steel Limited as well as M/s Super Steel Casting Limited. It has also been submitted that the then Superintendent of Police, Koderma had personally examined some of the witnesses and also supervised the case, wherein a direction was given to the Investigating Officer to arrest the officers of M/s Balajee Electro Steel Limited as well as M/s Super Steel Casting Limited. Learned counsel submits that on the next day of inspection, the meter started functioning suo motu, which is all the more reason of the involvement of the petitioner in committing theft of electrical energy.
The fact, which has been narrated above and the arguments, which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, suggests that the FIR admittedly led to submission of final form and on protest, cognizance was taken by the learned court below.
-3-Admittedly, inspection carried out by a team constituted by the DVC was with respect to inspection of the check meter installed at D.V.C. Koderma Sub Station, Bishunpur, which had stopped functioning but had subsequently started operating on its own on the next day when the inspection was carried out. Neither in the averments made in the counter affidavit nor in course of investigation, it has been mentioned that an inspection was carried out in the premises of M/s Balajee Electro Steel Limited. Only on the basis of the inspection of check meter installed at D.V.C. Koderma Sub Station, Bishunpur, a conclusion was arrived at with respect to complicity of the petitioner being the Director of M/s Balajee Electro Steel Limited of being involved in commission of theft of electrical energy. It also appears that cognizance has been taken and the petitioner has been issued summons for his appearance. Apart from the fact that the Company has not been made an accused, it has no where been stated as to whether the petitioner was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company and in absence of the company being made an accused in terms of section 49(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, no vicarious liability can be fastened upon the petitioner.
In view of the circumstances, enumerated above, I am inclined to allow this application.
Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for regular bail, and in that event, he will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 290 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 482 of 2001, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/