Patna High Court - Orders
Satyendra Rai @ Satyandar Kumar Rai @ ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 May, 2009
Author: Abhijit Sinha
Bench: Abhijit Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.19178 of 2007
Satyendra Rai @ Satyandar Kumar Rai @ Bajrang Wali, Son of
Sri Bimal Rai, resident of Mohalla-Dariapur Naubatpur, P.S.
Naubatpur, District-Patna ----------- Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Asstt. Electrical Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, Naubatpur,
Patna ----------------------- Opp.Parties.
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Prasad,Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P.
For the Electricity Board: Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra, Advocate.
__________
ORDER
The petitioner who is the sole F.I.R. named accused of
Naubatpur P.S. Case No.18 of 2007 registered under Sections 39/44 of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 has prayed for the quashing of the First
Information Report thereof and the entire proceeding initiated thereupon.
It appears that a raiding party led by Vijay Kumar Singh,
Assistant Engineer, conducted a surprise raid in the premises of the rice
mill of the petitioner at about 12.30 P.M. on 24.1.2007 in Village-
Dariyapur under Naubatpur Police Station and found a 5 H.P. motor
running directly with electrical energy extracted from the main supply line
illegally by attaching a hook. The petitioner is said to have fled on seeing
the raiding party. It is claimed that by overt act of the petitioner, the
Electricity Board had suffered a revenue loss of Rs.60, 000/-.
The Electricity Act 1910 was repealed by the Electricity Act,
2003 which received the assent of the President on 26.5.2003 and came
into force on 2.6.2003. Yet the officers of the Electricity Board
notwithstanding the passage of almost four years after the old Act 1910
-2-
had been repealed still continue to file written complaints under the old
Act of 1910. They also do not appear to be aware of the fact that Section
151 of the Electricity Act,2003 provides as follows:
"No court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in
writing made by appropriate Government or appropriate
Commissioner or any other Officer authorized by them or a
Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or
licensee under the governing Company as the case may be
for this purpose."
From Section 151 of the new Act, 2003, it is clear that a
complaint has to be filed and no police case is maintainable.
Opposing the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. , it was
submitted on behalf of the Electricity Board that by the overt act of the
petitioner the Board has suffered huge revenue loss and ,hence, the F.I.R.
had been lodged and that Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act 1910,
correspondence to Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act,2003 and
there is provision for compounding the offences on payment of total
amount along with penalty relating to theft of energy and tampering with
the meter under Section 2 of the Electricity Act,2003 . On this premise it
was submitted that the provisions of the new Act is applicable to the
petitioner facing prosecution in a criminal proceeding for offence under
the Electricity Act 1910 . It was further submitted that wrong reference to
the section in the F.I.R. cannot be a matter for quashing the F.I.R. and
hence, the application is premature and is fit to be dismissed.
The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
Electricity Board may be true but will not apply to the facts and
-3-
circumstances of the instant case.
The raid by the officials of the Electricity Board was conducted
on 24.1.2007 when Electricity Act, 2003 had already come into force and
the new Act under Section 151 of the Act provides that a complaint must
be filed by the persons enumerated therein and no cognizance would be
taken of an offence on the basis of a police case. Where the new Act
statutorily provides the procedure as to how cases are to be lodged
including those for theft of electricity, recourse cannot be taken to any
other method.
The very inception of the case being not in accordance with
law, the F.I.R. in the instant case cannot be sustained. In view of the
discussions made above. The continuance of the proceeding against the
petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of the court since under new
Act the consumer/accused in a case of theft of electricity is given the
liberty of compounding the offences under the provisions of Section 152
of the Electricity Act, 2003, whereas there was no such provision under
the Indian Electricity Act 1910.
In that view of the matter the First Information Report of
Naubatpur P.S. Case No.18 of 2007 is quashed and the application is
allowed.
( Abhijit Sinha, J )
Patna High Court,Patna
Dated : the 28th May,2009
Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.