Delhi District Court
Rajeev Narang vs State on 3 December, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
Rajeev Narang
S/o Shri Krishnan Narang
R/o B250, Flat No.3,
Ramprastha Colony,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
.......Revisionist.
Vs.
State
Through BSES
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi32.
........ Respondent.
Criminal Revision No. : 56/2011 Date of Institution of case : 28.05.2011 Date of Arguments : 18.11.2011 Date of Order : 03.12.2011 ORDER.
The present revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 passed by Sh. Sonu Agnihotri, Ld. M.M., Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. whereby the Crl. Revision No. 56/2011 Page 1 /6 2 Ld. M.M. dismissed the application of the revisionist to release the amount of Rs.2,72,000/ along with interest which was deposited by him at the time of securing the bail vide bail oder dated 19.06.2011.
The brief facts of the case are that the on 28.12.02, an FIR bearing No.591/2002 u/s 379 IPC & 39/44 Indian Electricity Act was registered in PS Nand Nagri against the revisionist with the allegations of theft of electricity. Revisionist was arrested and was sent to Judicial Custody. Revisionist moved an application dated 13.06.2003 for bail which was rejected by Sh. S.C. Malik, Ld. ASJ. The revisionist again moved an application for bail and the same was granted by the then Ld. ASJ, Sh. M.C. Garg ( as his Lordship then was) on 19.06.2003 subject to the deposit of 60% of bill amount raised by the BSES i.e. Rs.4,53,243.725/in two equal installments. The revisionist had complied with the directions of the bail order dated 19.06.03 and had deposited a sum of Rs.2,72,000/ with the respondent. After investigation charge sheet was filed, trial was conducted and Sh. Devender Kumar, the then Ld. M.M. had acquitted the Revisionist from the charges vide judgment dated 08.01.2008. The revisionist had sent a legal notice dated 13.09.2010 to the respondent but it neither replied the legal notice nor returned back the amount of Rs.2,72,000/ along with 18% interest per annum to the Revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist had moved an Crl. Revision No. 56/2011 Page 2 /6 3 application before Ld. M.M.Sh.Sonu Agnihotri for releasing the amount of Rs.2,72,000/ along with interest deposited with BSES as per bail order dated 19.06.03, but same was dismissed by the Ld. M.M. vide order dated 01.03.2011.
Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present Revision Petition was filed by the Revisionist .
The main grounds taken by the Revisionist for challenging the impugned order are that:
a) That the impugned order is illegal, bad in law, perverse and violative of established and statutory principle of laws ;
b) That the Ld. M.M. has failed to appreciate the material on record in its letter and spirit ;
c) That the Ld. M.M. has misunderstood the meaning of bail order dated 19.06.03 and failed to appreciate the contents of the bail order in its true perspective;
d) That the Ld. Trial Court erroneously and illegally accepted the version of the respondent wherein it pleaded that the amount deposited by the respondent was towards the civil liability and therefore the revisionist not at all entitled to get back his money from the respondent.
e) That the Ld. Trial Court erroneously and illegally accepted Crl. Revision No. 56/2011 Page 3 /6 4 the version of respondent wherein it pleaded that BSES is not bound to file civil suit as per Section 24 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
I have heard Sh.U.A.Khan Advocate for the Revisionist and Sh. Anil Bhasin Advocate for BSES/Respondent. I have also heard Sh. Atul Kumar Srivastava Addl. P.P. for the State. I have also gone through the file and the trial court record.
It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist that the bail was granted to the revisionist by the Ld. ASJ subject to deposit of 60% amount of the bill raised by DVB. It was the submission of the Ld. Cousnel that as the revisionist has been acquitted by the Court of Ld.M.M. so, he is entitled to claim back 60% amount of the bill deposited by him with DVB. It was contended that as the revisionist has been acquitted of the charges against him regarding electricity theft, so the verdict has come whereby the revisionist was exonerated of the charges of electricity theft. Meaning thereby the revisionist did not commit any theft of electricity. So, the amount deposited by the revisionist is required to be returned to him.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the order of the Ld. M.M. is legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. It was submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. that the court of M.M. has no power to release the money to the Revisionist which he had Crl. Revision No. 56/2011 Page 4 /6 5 deposited with DVB at the time of securing the bail.
It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for BSES that the amount which the revisionist deposited with the DVB was deposited by him on account of the electricity consumption which he had consumed by way of theft. It was submitted that the criminal trial has no relevance with the liability of the revisionist for payment of the electricity which the revisionist had consumed by way of theft.
The perusal of the record shows that Ld.Additional Sessions Judge while passing the bail order has observed that the Revisionist herein who was in custody for a long period and was ready to deposit substantial amount of the electricity bill. Therefore, it is clear from the bail order that the Revisionist himself has offered to deposit the substantial amount of the bill.
The revisionist has also annexed the copy of electricity bill raised by DVB. The perusal of the same shows that the bill has been raised regarding the consumption of electricity by the revisionist. Therefore, it is clear that the said bill pertains to the consumption of electricity by the revisionist which he consumed by way of theft. Hence, in my considered opinion, the deposit of bill by the revisionist does not have any relevance with the criminal case for which he was tried.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Crl. Revision No. 56/2011 Page 5 /6 6 J.M.D.Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. Manu/SC/0203/2003 has held that the trial of the accused in the criminal case has no bearing in the matter of assessment which is made in accordance with a tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly consumed.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion and judgment referred above, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court is upheld and the revision filed by the Revisionist is dismissed.
Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of this order.
Revision File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court 3rd December 2011 ( Surinder Kumar Sharma) Addl.Sessions Judge /North East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Crl. Revision No. 56/2011 Page 6 /6