Delhi High Court
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Shiv Dayal & Anr. 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.A. NO. 133/2009
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate with
Mr. Deepak Pathak, Advocate.
Versus
SHIV DAYAL & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP for the
State/Respondent No. 2.
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. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22 nd January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court in complaint case being CC No. 569/2008 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant company under Section 228 IPC and sentenced the company to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, the Crl.A. 133/2009 Page 1 of 5 accused/representative of the company to undergo SI for the period of 05 days.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant BSES Rajdhani Power Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant company filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No. 1/accused under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. During the pendency of the complaint, on being approached by the respondent No. 1/accused, the appellant company reduced the theft bill amount from Rs. 4,38,566/- to Rs. 1,31,335/- on compassionate grounds. The amount of the reduced bill was paid by the respondent No. 1/accused on 04th December, 2008 and No-Dues Certificate was issued by the appellant company. Respondent No. 1/accused was advised to appear before the learned Trial Court on hearing dated 18th December, 2008 and submit the No- Dues Certificate so that the criminal complaint could be withdrawn. Respondent No. 1/accused failed to appear before the Court on 18 th December, 2008. However, No-Dues Certificate was filed by the appellant, who made a prayer for withdrawal of the criminal complaint as settled/compromised. However, learned Trial Judge took offence to out of court settlement/compromise between the appellant and the accused as in his view, it amounted to playing with the administration Crl.A. 133/2009 Page 2 of 5 of justice. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not allow the appellant company to withdraw the complaint and issued show cause notice under Section 345 Cr.P.C. without any justifiable reason.
3. The appellant company filed reply to the show cause notice on 13th January, 2009 bringing to the notice of the court order of Single Judge of this court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1838/2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 482/2008, whereby it was held that the Discoms, like the appellant company have a right to settle the cases with the accused persons. The learned Trial Judge, instead of accepting the explanation given by the appellant in his reply to show cause notice, convicted the appellant under Section 228 IPC observing that the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is not compoundable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Section 228 IPC is totally unwarranted for the reason that the necessary ingredients of Section 228 IPC are not made out in this case.
5. Section 228 of IPC reads thus:
"Section 228. Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding--Crl.A. 133/2009 Page 3 of 5
Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
6. On bare reading of the above provision, it is apparent that Section 228 is attracted when the accused intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption in judicial proceedings. In the instant case, undisputedly the appellant company has settled the matter with the accused and made a prayer to the court for withdrawal of the complaint. Aforesaid act of the appellant can by no stretch of the imagination, be termed as either an act with the intention to insult the court or to cause interruption in some court proceedings. If at all, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was not compoundable, he was well within his rights to reject the prayer of the appellant but it is shocking that he proceeded to issue show cause notice under Section 345 Cr.P.C. to the appellant company seeking explanation as to why it should not be punished for the offence under Section 228 IPC. Not only this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, even after the filing of reply by the appellant, did not bother to look into law and proceeded to convict the appellant under Section 228 IPC without any basis. Since the ingredients of Section 228 IPC are not satisfied in this case, I find it Crl.A. 133/2009 Page 4 of 5 difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 228 IPC. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the conviction of the appellant under Section 228 IPC is set aside.
7. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JANUARY 27, 2011 akb Crl.A. 133/2009 Page 5 of 5