ORDER Heard Mr. Jitendra Nr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The two petitioners are aggrieved by have prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.2.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in Siwan (Town) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2005 whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 379 I.P.C. and 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act. 3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by one Devnath Singh, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Siwan, who alongwith others had raided the sweet-meat shop running in the name and styled of "J.P. Sweets" where Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal and one Dhanraj Kumar Chaurasia were found present and it was detected that the shop was illegally consuming electrical energy by drawing the same from the main transmission line by means of toka. It has also been alleged that whereas Jaiswal managed to flee, Chaurasia, a staff of the shop was arrested and certain electrical items and other incriminating articles were seized under a seizure list. It was also alleged that the Electricity Board had suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/- on account of the illegal consumption of electricity. 4. It has been submitted that whereas petitioner no.1 was not a staff of the shop J.P. Sweets but a mere witness of the seizure list petitioner no. 2 is not the owner of the shop as alleged when the factual owner of the shop was one Suraj Upadhaya whose name is registered with the Sales Tax Department, Siwan. 5. On perusal of the seizure list appended as Annexure 2 to this application, it is apparent that the name of Dhanraj Kumar Chaurasiya appears as one of the witnesses of the seizure list and he had signed thereupon. Strange are the ways and wisdom of the police who have made a seizure list witness an accused in the same case when the law provides that seizure must be made in the presence of independent witnesses. 6. So far as Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal is concerned, certified copy of order sheet dated 17.6.2005 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Siwan, in A.B.P. No. 42/2005 was shown to me. 6. So far as Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal is concerned, certified copy of order sheet dated 17.6.2005 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Siwan, in A.B.P. No. 42/2005 was shown to me. From perusal of the same it appears that a report from the Sales Tax Department was called for regarding the name of the proprietor of the sweet meat shop J.P. Sweets was called for and the report sent revealed that the owner of J.P. Sweets was one Suraj Upadhaya, son of Ghanshyam Upadhaya of Fatehpur. 7. From the above it is apparent that the taking of cognizance against the two petitioner was an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 stood repealed and a fresh enactment, namely, the Electricity Act, 2003 has come into force. Therefore, no cognizance under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act could have been taken. 9. For the foregoing reasons this application succeeds and the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed.