9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nction for prosecution against them, however opted to charge the petitioner under Section 39 of the Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC. FIR in this case was registered on the complaint of Director, Vigilance Security, Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh, in a joint complaint against total ninety-one units alleging that the consumers and the employees of Haryana State Electricity Board were responsible for theft of electric energy. It was complaint that the officials had also been indulging in connivance with the consumers in tampering the meter readings and facilitate the theft of electricity every day thereby huge revenue loss to the Haryana State Electricity Board. It is pertinent to observe that about 54 persons had been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 9.8.2002. 3. Through the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks the quashing of FIR and the charges under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and Section 379 IPC. So far as theft of electricity and applicability of Section 379 IPC is concerned, this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 18718 of 2008 Raman Kapila and another Vs. State of Punjab has held as follows:- Applying the ratio M/s Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. And others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007 (1) RCR (Crl) 387 to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that no complaint under Section 151 of the Act has been filed by any competent person under the Act, for theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Act. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration of FIR on the basis of information of lay-man, framing of charges vide order dated March 25, 2008 and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner are patently an abuse of the process of the Court, as such the FIR, charge sheet and the order of framing of charge, annexure P-3, qua the petitioners, are hereby quashed. 4. In the present case also applying the ratio of above said judgment, I am of the considered opinion that no complaint under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, has been filed by any competent person under the Electricity Act for theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Act as such the cognizance cannot be taken by a Court in the matter of theft of electricity. The framing of charge under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
