Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1975 DIGILAW 130 (PAT)

Hardwar Singh v. State Of Bihar

1975-06-27

D.P.SINHA

body1975
Judgment 1. This is an application by Hardwar Singh for quashing an order, dated the 5.02.1972, by which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jehanabad took cognizance of offences under Ss. 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and transferred the case to the Court of a Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, for disposal. 2. The short facts of the case are these. On the 27.05.1971, Shri Dasrath Prasad (O. P. No. 2), the Assistant Engineer of Electric Supply Sub-Division, Jehanabad, accompanied by some persons, raided the pump chamber of the petitioner in village Ainwa, within the said electric supply sub-division and caught the petitioner red-handed in the act of stealing electric energy as he found that the three phased L. T. line had been connected directly to the 3 H. P. motor pump No. 47219 and the pump was operating and irrigating land. He further found V. I. wire connected with the L. T. line. Thereafter apposite party No. 2. lodged information to the above effect with the local police, who after investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 and 44 of the Act on the basis of which the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order an the ground that the Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act except on a complaint made by the persons mentioned in Sec. 50 of the Act and since the police officer, who submitted the charge-sheet was not one of the person" mentioned in that section, the Magistrate committed an error in law in taking cognizance of the offences and that therefore, the order was fit to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. Sec. 50 of the Act provides as follows :- "50. Institution of prosecution - No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act or any rule, licence or order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector or of a person aggrieved by the same." 4. It is now well settled that the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act are attracted in respect of prosecution under Sections 39 and 40 of the Act. It is now well settled that the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act are attracted in respect of prosecution under Sections 39 and 40 of the Act. In this behalf the decision in Avtar Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666 : (1965-1 Cri LJ 605) may be seen. In his report to the police, apposite party No. 2, who is the Electrical Engineer of the Electric Supply Subdivision, Jehanabad, within whose jurisdiction the offences are alleged to have been committed, had asserted that he was the person aggrieved in respect of the acts complained of. The short point for consideration is as to whether it can be said that the prosecution in this case had been instituted at the instance of opposite party No. 2 who claims to be the person aggrieved within the meaning of Sec. 50 of the Act. There can be little doubt that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative, because the police had acted in the matter on the information lodged by opposite party No. 2 and it is not dispute that the offence under Sec.39 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment upto three years which is the punishment provided under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and that as such according to the second schedule, of the Code (see the provisions at about the end of that schedule), it is a cognizable offence. The police acted at his instance and the investigation culminated in the sub-Division of the charge sheet, as such, it must be held that the prosecution before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had been instituted at the instance of opposite party No. 2, who claimed to be the person aggrieved within the meaning of Sec. 50 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that opposite party No. 2 was not the person aggrieved as contemplated under that section. This is a matter to be investigated at the appropriate stage and no pronouncement in this behalf need be made in this revision. It would thus appear that there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.