Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Dayal Steels Ltd. vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 28 March, 2008

Raj Kumar Singhania vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 18 January, 2024

(Supra). It is well known that if any agreement for the industry with the JUVNL is being made, only an authorized person is signing the agreement on behalf of the company. Whether, this petition has signed any agreement with the JUVNL for supply of electricity in the said premises of the company or not can only be the subject matter of the trial as the contention has been made that the company is not made an accused and in view of the allegation made it cannot be said that it was without the knowledge of the petitioner that who was running the company and this disputed question of fact can only be the subject matter of the trial and in view of that, the argument with regard to not making the company an accused made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not fatal for proceeding the trial and that can be proved in the trial. Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 speaks of lodging of the complaint as well as the FIR and this aspect of the matter is set at rest by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Dayal Steel Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.", 2008 2 JLJR 221. A reference may be made to the paragraph no.18 of the said judgment, which is quoted below:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Shri Mukesh Charan & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2009

"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."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1