Delhi High Court
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Aashish Sahrawat on 27 January, 2011
Author: Ajit Bharihoke
Bench: Ajit Bharihoke
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: January 27, 2011
+ CRL.M.C. NO. 1906/2008
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate with
Mr. Deepak Pathak, Advocate.
Versus
AASHISH SAHRAWAT ....RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Advocate Proxy for
Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)
1. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, the petitioner herein vide this petition has pressed for following prayer:
"(i) allow the instant petition and quash/set aside/vary/modify the last para of the order dated 7 th May, 2008 in criminal complaint Case No. 223 of 2007 passed by Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and;
(ii) to pass/make any other such other appropriate orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.Crl.M.C.1906/2008 Page 1 of 5
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner company is a licensed power supply company. On 08th April, 2005, a statutory inspection/raid was conducted by the officials of BSES at Flat No. 2423, D II, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The premises was found occupied by the respondent Aashish Sahrawat and one P.N.Puri, who was declared proclaimed offender as he failed to put in appearance in the court. The inspection team detected theft/unauthorized use of electricity in the said premises. Accordingly, a supplementary theft bill for ` 2,51,027/- was raised. Respondent herein and P.N.Puri failed to pay the amount of supplementary bill. The petitioner No. 1 was thus constrained to file complaint case No. 223/2007 in the Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the complaint and adopted summary trial procedure.
3. During the pendency of trial, the respondent approached the petitioner company for settlement/compromise and the petitioner company, as an act of good faith, considered the request of the respondent and after discussion, reduced the theft bill amount and allowed the respondent to pay that amount in instalments. The factum of this proposed settlement was brought to the notice of learned Trial Judge on the next date of hearing and on the payment of the last instalment, the petitioner intimated the court that it was Crl.M.C.1906/2008 Page 2 of 5 not interested in proceeding with the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as compromised.
4. It appears that learned Trial Judge took offence to out of court settlement done by the petitioner with the accused during the pendency of complaint. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while directing the respondent/accused to deposit ` 45,000/- on the next date of hearing so that the case could be closed, inter alia, observed thus:
"Order be given dasti of which copy be also sent to the CEO in confidential for his information and direction not to interfere in the Court of justice after filing of the complaint by dealing with the subject matter of the complaint in the manner as discussed above. Accordingly, put up on 9.5.208 for further orders".
Petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid observation of the court and sending of a confidential direction to CEO of the company.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner company has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner company is a private sector organization in the business of supply of electricity and its prime concern is to generate profits. The main concern of the petitioner company in power theft cases is to ensure that the revenue in respect of the power theft is recovered as early as possible, therefore, the petitioner company is well within its rights Crl.M.C.1906/2008 Page 3 of 5 to settle the bills raised in respect of power theft even during the pendency of the complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned counsel contended that the learned Additional Sessions, if he was of the view that the offence under Section 135 Electricity Act is not compoundable, could have rejected the request of the petitioner company for withdrawal of the complaint but the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to restrain the petitioner company from settling the bill amounts after initiating the prosecution of the accused under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
6. I find merit in the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The object of Section 135 of the Electricity Act is to deter the theft of electricity but at the same time, one cannot ignore that the petitioner company, who is in the business of supply of electricity, has a legal right to recover the revenue in respect of the power theft by raising bill or even by encouraging settlement. Such an act on the part of the petitioner company, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as interference in the judicial proceedings even if complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is pending. Thus, in my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court had no jurisdiction to send a communication to the CEO of the petitioner company directing the petitioner to refrain from settling the matter after filing of the complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned Crl.M.C.1906/2008 Page 4 of 5 Additional Sessions Judge also seems to have lost sight of the fact that he was exercising criminal jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure and not a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where he could issue such directions or orders. An Additional Sessions Judge presides over a particular jurisdiction and he is bound by rules of procedure and he cannot overstep into the areas which have no concern with the jurisdiction being exercised by him. If, on hearing the parties, the Judge was of the view that there was no justification in prayer for withdrawal of the complaint, he should have rejected request of the petitioner instead of issuing directions to the CEO.
7. In view of the aforesaid, I find it difficult to sustain the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar dated 07 th May, 2008. The order is accordingly quashed.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JANUARY 27, 2011 akb Crl.M.C.1906/2008 Page 5 of 5