Jharkhand High Court
Shri Mukesh Charan & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2009
Author: M. Y. Eqbal
Bench: M. Y. Eqbal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 1327 of 2006
1. Shri Mukesh Charan
2. Shri Mukul Kumar Charan
3. Sri Avinash Charan ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shri Dhananjay Kumar, Assistant Electrical
Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board
... ... ... Opp. Parties
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
------
For the Petitioner: M/s. M.S. Mittal, N.K. Pasari, A.K. Yadav For the Opp. Parties: M/s. C. Prabha, Rajesh Shankar
------
Reserved on: 16.11.2009 Pronounced on: 16th December, 2009 M. Y. Eqbal, J. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Patratu PS Case No.173 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2575 of 2003 lodged by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Bhurkunda for an offence under Sections 379, 120(b) I.P.C. and Sections 39, 44, 135, 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. It appears that the a surprise inspection was conducted in the petitioners' premises in pursuance of a confidential information received by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board about large scale power theft alleged to have been committed by the petitioners' unit. On receipt of the information, the matter was referred to the D.I.G. of Police (Vigilance & Security), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, who after examining the matter, instructed that a raid be conducted in the petitioners' premises. From the F.I.R. it appears that a raiding party under the supervision of Deputy Inspector General of Police, comprising of two officers of the Chairman Cell of J.S.E.B., two officers of A.P.T. Cell, a Magistrate, Assistant Electrical Engineer and other officers conducted the inspection and the assistance was also taken from the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh who arranged the police force. On inspection, the inspecting team found that the seal bits of the secondary terminal box cover was tampered with and C.T. terminal shunted by flexible wire. Various other irregularities were also found. Accordingly, the First Information Report was lodged.
2 Cr. M.P. No.1327of 20063. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly contended that F.I.R. could not have been lodged under Sections 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, inasmuch the Court is not empowered to take cognizance under any offence against the petitioners under this section except upon a complaint in writing made by the Appropriate Government or by the Appropriate Commission or any officer authorized by them. According to the learned counsel, police cannot lodge a First Information Report. Mr. Mittal further submitted that the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is mala fide, inasmuch as before the raid was conducted, one Dinesh Prasad Singh, a person attached to the Chairman Cell, came to the petitioners' factory and made a demand of Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioners refused to pay any amount which resulted in a raid in the petitioners' factory premises.
4. So far the question of authority of the police officers to lodge F.I.R. is concerned, it was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Dayal Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors [AIR 2008 Jharkhand 105], wherein the Bench observed: -
"17. From a conjunctive reading of the above noted provisions of law, it would be manifest that a complaint may be lodged with the police by an authorized officer of the licensee or a generating company and that cognizance of the offences can be taken by the Court upon a complaint in writing made either by any officer authorized by the Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or by a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be. The Court can also take cognizance of the offences punishable under the Act upon a report of the police filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Act lays down for constitution of Special Courts by the State Government for the trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act. However, Rule 11 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 provides the jurisdiction of the Courts other than the Special Courts and lays down that jurisdiction of such Courts shall not be barred till such time the Special Court is constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 153o f the Act.
18. Since the Act and Rules thereunder provide for the power of Courts to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the Act upon a written complaint made by the licensee or any representative of the licensee and also upon police report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, it cannot be said therefore that the FIR lodged by the respondent No.7 in his capacity of being a representative of the licensee namely the Corporation, is without authority. Information relating to a cognizable offence can certainly be lodged with the police in order to set the law into motion. As to whether the respondent No.7 being the authorized representative of the corporation is an 3 Cr. M.P. No.1327of 2006 officer of the rank higher than the rank of such officer authorized by the Appropriate Commission, it would again be a matter of evidence and proof which may be considered by the Appropriate Court at the time of taking cognizance of the offences. The investigation into the allegation made in the FIR does not call for interference at this stage."
5. A Single Bench of this Court in the case Shri Dinesh Sonthalia and others Vs. State of Jharkhand & anr [Cr. M.P. No.118 of 2007 decided on 18.5.2009], has also held that F.I.R. could be lodged by a person as a representative of the licensee and the same cannot be said as without any authority. The Court observed:-
"15. Therefore, it appears that the points raised by the petitioners in these three quashing applications are fully covered by the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in "M/s. Dayal Steels Ltd (supra) wherein after discussing and considering Section 151, 151-A, 151-B of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended and Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules 2005, it has been held that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity Rules 2005, empowers the Court to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act upon written complaint made by the licensee or the representative of the licensee and also upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has also been held that the FIR lodged by a person being a representative of the licensee cannot be said to be without authority. The facts as to whether the informant was authorized representative of the corporation would be a matter of evidence and proof, which may be considered by the Appropriate Court at the time of taking cognizance of the offence. The investigation into the allegations made in the FIR on the aforesaid ground cannot be called for, for interference."
6. So far the allegation levelled by the petitioners about mala fide and demand of money by one Dinesh Prasad is concerned, that cannot be relied upon at this stage, particularly when such statements have been made in the application on the basis of information derived from the record and the affidavit sworn by a pairvikar of the petitioners.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the ratio decided by a Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceeding and the First Information Report.
This application, therefore, has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J) Manoj/N.A.F.R.