Karnataka High Court
Sri Ansar Basha vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2021
Crl.P.No.2613/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2613/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI ANSAR BASHA
S/O. S.DAWOOD
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
IDLOOD ROAD, 1ST CROSS
GANDHINAGAR
SIDDLAGHATTA-562 105 ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. THANUJA M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
POLICE INSPECTOR
BESCOM VIGILANCE
POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 207 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MADHAV KASHYAP, ADV. FOR
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER EACC.
NO.55/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA
SITTING AT CHINTAMANI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 135 AND 150 OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.
Crl.P.No.2613/2017
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
"Whether the proceedings in EACC No.55/2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur at Chintamani against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court?" is the question involved in this case.
2. During the year 2013, the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), BESCOM, Sidlaghatta Rural Sub-division. On 11.07.2013, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance) filed the complaint against B.Ramaiah (accused No.1) alleging that though the temporary electricity meter given to him for his house at Astegowdanahalli extension had expired on 08.08.2012, without getting the same renewed he unauthorizedly tapped the electricity from the nearby electrical supply line and committed theft of electricity to the tune of 4946 watts.
Crl.P.No.2613/20173
3. On the basis of such complaint, the respondent-police registered Crime No.141/2013 against B.Ramaiah for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. When the matter was pending for investigation, the petitioner was entrusted with the work of assessing the quantum of electricity so stolen and the value of the same. The petitioner conducted the spot inspection and submitted his report as per Annexure-G to the respondent-police to the effect that as per his assessment, the accused - B.Ramaiah is liable to pay back billing charge for one month for the installation ID No.2591345923.
4. Under Annexure-H dated 12.08.2013, the respondent - police accepted the report of the petitioner and recommended to the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Sidlaghatta sub-division to accept the report of the petitioner and reduce the back billing charges. Accordingly, the Assistant Executive Engineer permitted accused - B.Ramaiah to compound the offence by paying back billing charges of Rs.29,949/-, Crl.P.No.2613/2017 4 compounding charges of Rs.20,000/- etc., in all amounting to Rs.49,949/-. Accordingly, accused - B.Ramaiah paid the compounding charges, back billing charges etc., on 10.09.2013.
5. On 11.02.2016 i.e., about three years after the compounding, the respondent-police charge sheeted the petitioner as accused No.2 in the case along with accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 150E of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was alleged that accused No.1 had committed theft of Electricity from 08.08.2012 to 11.07.2013, but the petitioner in collusion with accused No.1 assessed the back billing charges only for one month. Thereby committed loss of Rs.3,43,406/- to BESCOM.
6. On receiving such complaint, the trial Court even without passing an order regarding taking of cognizance issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and other accused.
Crl.P.No.2613/20175
7. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the said proceedings on the following grounds:
(i) The alleged act is purportedly done in exercise of his official duty. The sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is not taken to prosecute the petitioner;
(ii) Under Annexures - G and H, the Assistant Executive Engineer and respondent - police themselves accepted the report of the petitioner regarding the back billing. Later only to harass the petitioner, they falsely implicated the petitioner in the case; and
(iii) Section 168 bars any suit of prosecution against the officer or employee of Electricity Department for anything done in good faith under the Act. Since the report of the petitioner was accepted by his higher officer and the respondent, it cannot be said that the act done by him was not in good faith.
8. Per contra, Sri.Madhav Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Sections 197 of Cr.P.C., and 168 of Electricity Act, 2003 are applicable Crl.P.No.2613/2017 6 only to an act done in good faith and in exercise of the official duty. He submits that something done in collusion with the co-accused, cannot be said to be an act done in good faith. Therefore, he submits that Sections 197 of Cr.P.C., and 168 of the Electricity Act are not applicable. He contends that whether an act is done in good faith or in exercise of the official duty is a matter of trial.
9. It is not disputed that the petitioner was an officer empowered to assess the back billing charges. It is also not disputed that the report given by him was subject to the scrutiny of his higher officer namely Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Sidlaghatta sub- division. It is also not disputed that petitioner under Annexure - F recommended to the Assistant Executive Engineer for one months back billing. Accepting that the Assistant Executive Engineer under Annexure-G recommend to the respondent to act accordingly.
10. Annexure - H is the letter of the respondent itself to the Assistant Executive Engineer. In that letter Crl.P.No.2613/2017 7 it is said that the police inspector BESCOM conducted the re-inspection of the spot and found that the recommendation of the petitioner to reduce the back billing charges has merits, therefore, the Assistant Executive Engineer can take action to reduce the back billing charges.
11. On the basis of such recommendation, accused No.1 was permitted to pay the reduced compounding charges. After three years of all such events, the respondent comes up with the case that the petitioner was colluded with accused No.1 and reduced the back billing charges. The charge sheet does not contain any other communication made to the Assistant Executive Engineer in the matter.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others1 has held that if the material produced by the prosecution itself shows that no offence is made out against the accused, the High Court can quash the 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 Crl.P.No.2613/2017 8 proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This matter is covered by the said judgment.
13. It is material to note that the Special/Trial Court without even taking cognizance has summoned the accused. On that count also the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
14. Thirdly on collecting the compounding charges, the Trial Court has closed the case against the main accused himself. The allegation against the petitioner is only that he was an abettor. On that count also the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
15. Further, the material on record clearly shows that the recommendation of the petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Executive Engineer. Thus the act was purportedly done in exercise of his official duty. Therefore, to prosecute the petitioner the sanction contemplated under Section 197 was required.
16. Under the circumstances, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of Crl.P.No.2613/2017 9 the process of the Court. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in EACC No.55/2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, sitting at Chintamani against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG