Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP and Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Since the complaint is of 1991, the matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 31.3.2003 at Annexure-A and the order dated 22.4.2004 at Annexure-B passed by the learned JMFC, Veraval and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, respectively and also praying for deletion of the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 379 of the I.P.C. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No. 1301/1991 pending before the learned JMFC Veraval.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Officer from the Gujarat Electricity Board (G.E.B.) respondent No. 2 herein had visited the factory premises of the petitioner and alleged the theft of the energy against the petitioner, and thereby had issued a bill of approximately more than Rs. 1,60,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, raised objections against the said exorbitant bill issued by the concerned Officers of the GEB. Without taking the said objections into consideration, the GEB went ahead and registered a complaint against the petitioner being Criminal Case No. 1301/1991 before the JMFC, Veraval for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C., read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 alleging theft of energy.

6. Being aggrieved by the framing of such charges, the petitioner vide Exhibit 25 had given an application for modification of charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner had contended that in view of the change in Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, which contains a specific provision for punishment for theft of electricity, charge under Section 379 of the I.P.C., would not be attracted. The learned JMFC, Veraval by an order dated 31.3.2003 had rejected the said application on the ground that it would not make any difference even though Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act has been substantially changed. The petitioner had challenged the said order of the learned JMFC before the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 31/2003. The learned Sessions Judge, Veraval by an order dated 22.4.2004 had rejected the said Criminal Revision Application confirming the order passed by the learned JMFC, Veraval. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said two orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the said two orders as well as for quashing and setting aside the complaint itself.

8. Before Mr. Punit Bali, learned advocate appearing for Vyas Associates for the petitioner makes his submissions to the Court, Mr. M.A. Patel, learned APP appearing for the respondent No. 1 State has raised the preliminary objections that the present Criminal Misc. Application is not maintainable as it is second revision and as per the provision contained under Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, such second revision is not maintainable. He has submitted that the petitioner has mainly challenged the order passed by the learned JMFC, Veraval on petitioner's application filed under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code for modification of the charge framed by seeking deletion of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which application was rejected and against the said rejection order of the learned JMFC, Veraval the petitioner has moved a Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge, Veraval, which was also rejected. He has, therefore, submitted that when both these orders are challenged in the present Misc. Criminal Application, the said application is not maintainable. This can be challenged only by way of filing Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Patel, has further submitted that the petitioner has also made the prayer in the present petition for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Case No. 1301/1991 pending before the learned JMFC, Veraval. He has, however, submitted that the Criminal Case of 1991 cannot be challenged after more than 13 years by way of filing the present petition in 2004. He has, therefore, submitted that the present application deserves to be rejected without granting any relief to the petitioner.