Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 674 (CAL)

Prantosh Das v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-08-31

ARUNABHA BASU

body2007
Judgment :- ARUNABHA BASU, J. (1) THE petitioner has filed instant application under section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Daspur p. S. Case No. 23/2007 dated 15. 2. 2007 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 56/2007 under section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter called the Act.) (2) THE petitioners case in short is that the petitioner is a cultivator and he used to cultivate his land by obtaining water supply from the submersible pump of one Gostha Behari Adak bearing service connection No. SK/iri/1914, consumer No. S-840622. The said connection was situated on Dag No. 716 but due to insufficiency of the water level, the said Gostha Behari Adak shifted the pump on Dag No. 3084 which was adjacent to Dag No. 716. The said dag belongs to one Bablu Das who is the younger brother of the petitioner and written permission was obtained from Bablu Das by Shri Gostha Behari Adak. (3) PETITIONER states that on 15. 2. 2007 Shri Prasanta Kumar Roy (Opposite party No. 2), who is the Station Manager, Sonakhali Group Electric Supply alongwith some officers came for inspection of the said submersible pump and subsequently petitioner came to learn that the inspection team disconnected power of the said submersible pump for default in payment of electricity bill. Petitioner was not present during inspection. However, petitioner could learn that Opposite Party No. 2 lodged FIR at thana against the petitioner for commission of offence of theft of electricity and accordingly police registered daspur P. S. case No. 23/2007 against the petitioner. It is specifically stated by the petitioner that he has no connection with the said submersible pump and moreover the said submersible pump is not even situated on the land of the petitioner. (4) IT is also contended by the petitioner that after getting a copy of FIR, he contacted the Station Manager and informed him that he has no connection either with the land on which the submersible pump was installed or with the submersible pump and the Station Manager assured to enquire into the matter but no such enquiry was conducted. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entire allegation as raised in the FIR is absolutely false and, as such, the said complaint should be set aside and quashed. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entire allegation as raised in the FIR is absolutely false and, as such, the said complaint should be set aside and quashed. (5) IT is also stated that during search and seizure, no signature of the witnesses of the said locality or family members of the petitioner was obtained. It is also stated that FIR does not disclose the quantum of alleged theft of electricity which is one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence and subsequent penalty, if any, under the provisions of section 135 of the Act. (6) DURING the course of hearing, learned Advocate for the petitioner also raised the plea that in this case Opposite Party No. 2 lodged FIR in terms of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but under section 151 of the Act, cognizance of the offence can only be taken upon a complaint in writing made by appropriate Government or appropriate commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or a licensee or the generating company as the case may be. (7) IN reply, the learned Advocate appearing for the State and also learned advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that due to subsequent amendment of the Act, cognizance for the offence under section 135 of the Act can also be taken on police report. (8) IN order to appreciate and consider the rival contention of both the parties, it will be appropriate to decide the following points for necessary consideration: -1. Whether cognizance for the offence under section 135 of the Act can only be taken on complaint in writing by the appropriate authority/officers as mentioned under section 151 of the Act. 2. Whether this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be invoked and the proceedings shall be quashed. Point No. 1 section 151 of the Electricity Act provides for cognizance of offence and the section is reproduced below: -"151. 2. Whether this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be invoked and the proceedings shall be quashed. Point No. 1 section 151 of the Electricity Act provides for cognizance of offence and the section is reproduced below: -"151. Cognizance of offences.-No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by appropriate Government or appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose: provided that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: provided further that a Special Court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. " (9) ACT No. 26 of 2007 is the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 and the amending Act came into force with effect from 29th May, 2007. For the purpose of present discussion, section 15 of the Amending Act provides amendment to section 151 of the Act, which is reproduced below: "15. In section 151 of the principal Act, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-provided that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: provided further that a Special Court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. " (10) IN addition to amendment of section 151 of the principal Act as mentioned above, certain new sections were also inserted by the Amending Act, namely section 151a and section 151b. The sections thus incorporated are reproduced below: - "151a. For the purposes of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in Chapter xii of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 151b. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 or section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable. For the purposes of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in Chapter xii of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 151b. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 or section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable. " (11) CONSEQUENT to the amendment effected to section 151 of the Act and further by introduction of section 151a and section 151b as mentioned above, the legal position about taking of cognizance will be both under petition of complaint by the authority as mentioned under section 151 of the Act as well as on the basis of the police report submitted in terms of section 173 of the code of Criminal Procedure by the police officer conducting investigation. (12) THE insertion of the word in section 151b of the Act that the offence punishable under section 135 to section 140 or section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable, gives clear indication about the power of the police to conduct investigation. (13) IN addition to section 151b the amendment to section 151 of the Act also stipulates that cognizance can be taken on the basis of police report filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (14) IN terms of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions as to taking of cognizance are prescribed therein. When cognizance is taken on the basis of complaint, the Magistrate or Court as the case may be takes congnizance under section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the cognizance is taken on police report submitted under section 173 of the code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance is taken under section 190 (1) (b) of the code of Criminal Procedure. In addition to those provisions, section 190 of the code of Criminal Procedure also provides for taking of cognizance in terms of section 190 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the same is not at all material for the purpose of present discussion. In addition to those provisions, section 190 of the code of Criminal Procedure also provides for taking of cognizance in terms of section 190 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the same is not at all material for the purpose of present discussion. (15) IN view of the provisions of law as discussed above, it is now absolutely clear that the cognizance can be taken for commission of offence under section 151 of the Act both on complaint instituted by authority/officers as mentioned under section 151 of the Act as well as on the basis of police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (16) THE question now arise as sought to be argued by learned Advocate for the petitioner that so far as the present case is concerned, FIR was registered on 15. 2. 2007 and as the amendment came into force on and from 29th May, 2007, the subsequent amendment cannot cure the legal defect as because on the date the FIR was lodged by opposite party No. 2, the Court was not empowered to take cognizance on the basis of police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (17) THIS leads to the question whether Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 amending section 151 of the principal Act shall have prospective or retrospective effect. (18) IT is contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and also learned Advocate for the State that the amendment being procedural will have retrospective effect and as such the present case, even if the same was registered before the amendment come into force will be protected. (19) IT is evident that by the said amendment a procedure as to taking cognizance was introduced and by the said amendment it was stipulated that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of the police officer filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal procedure. (20) NEEDLESS to add that the amendment to section 151 of the Act, which came into force by the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 relates to procedural matter about taking of cognizance and whether such procedural matters will be prospective or retrospective is the main issue to be decided here. (21) THIS issue was considered by the Honble Supreme Court on number of occasions. (21) THIS issue was considered by the Honble Supreme Court on number of occasions. (22) IN Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1953 SC 394 , Five Judges Bench of Honble Supreme Court considered the scope of Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts)Ordinance (5 of 1949) and the Honble Supreme Court after considering the scope of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution explained the prohibition under Article 20 is only conviction or sentence under ex post facto law and not the trial thereof. (23) AT para 9 of the aforesaid judgment, Honble Supreme Court explained the statutory position in the following terms:- " (9) In this context it is necessary to notice that what is prohibited under article 20 is only conviction or sentence under an ex post facto law and not the trial thereof. Such trial under a procedure different from what obtained at the time of the commission of the offence or by a Court different from that which had competence at the time cannot ipso facto be held to be unconstitutional. A person accused of the commission of an offence has no fundamental right to trial by a particular Court or by a particular procedure, except insofar as any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right may be involved. " (24) IN Union of India vs. Sukumar Pyne, reported in AIR 1966 Supreme court 1206, Five Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court while considering the provision of section 23 (1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 reiterated the legal principal that no person has a vested right in any Courts of procedure. The Honble Apex Court held : a person accused of the commission of an offence has no vested right to be tried by a particular Court or a particular procedure except insofar as there is any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right is involved. There, is no principle underlying article 20 of the Constitution which makes a right to any course of procedure a vested right. There, is no principle underlying article 20 of the Constitution which makes a right to any course of procedure a vested right. (25) HONble Supreme Court while considering the amendment to section 23 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 took into consideration that after the amendment adjudication proceedings or criminal proceedings may be taken up in respect of contravention mentioned in section 23 (1) while before the amendment only criminal proceedings befpre a Court would be instituted to punish the offence. (26) HONble Apex Court also held in the following language : the view that the new amendment does not apply to contraventions which took place before the Amending Act came into force is not correct. Further, the contention that there is no indication in the Amending Act that the new procedure would be retrospective cannot be accepted. For, in the matter of procedure it is not necessary that there should be a special provision to indicate that the procedural law is retrospective. (27) HONble Supreme Court also considered the scope of section 113a of the evidence Act about presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman in Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh and Ors. , reported in AIR 1990 Supreme court 209 and held at para 36 : "the provisions of the said section do not create any new offence and as such it does not create any substantial right but it is merely a matter of procedure of evidence and as such it is retrospective and will be applicable to this case. It is profitable to refer in this connection to Halsburys Laws of england, Fourth Edition, Volume 44 page 570 wherein it has been stated that: "the general rule is that all statutes, other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence, are prima facie prospective, and retrospective effect is not to be given to them unless, by express words or necessary implication, it appears that this was the intention of the legislature. . . . . " (28) THE same position is also accepted by this Honble Court in Bireswar moral and Anr. vs. Indu Bhushan Kundu and Ors. . . . . " (28) THE same position is also accepted by this Honble Court in Bireswar moral and Anr. vs. Indu Bhushan Kundu and Ors. , reported in AIR (30) 1943 calcutta 573, and held : "when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them. But there is an exception to this rule, namely, where enactments merely affect procedure, and do not extend to rights of action. If a statute deals merely with the procedure in an action, and does not affect the rights of the parties, " it will be held to apply prima facie to all actions, pending as well as future. Whether a person has a right to recover property is a question of substantive law. But in what Court he must institute proceedings is a question of procedural law. " (29) I have already pointed out that by the Amending Act of 2007 the procedure as to taking cognizance on police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was effected and, as such, it is absolutely clear that procedure as to taking cognizance in addition to taking cognizance on petition of complaint instituted by the authority/officers was introduced. Such amendment being purely procedural shall have retrospective effect covering all pending and future actions. (30) SO far as the present case is concerned, it is immaterial whether the case was registered before the amendment came into force, as the amendment in question has retrospective effect, the present case will also be covered and as such on this point alone the petitioner cannot succeed. The point is answered accordingly. Point No. 2 (31) THE petitioner has prayed for an order to quash the FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on the basis of which Daspur P. S. Case No. 23/2007 was registered by police and investigation is conducted by the police. The present petition is filed under the provision of section 401 read with section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the revisional power of High Court, while section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure provides for saving of inherent powers of High Court. The present petition is filed under the provision of section 401 read with section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the revisional power of High Court, while section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure provides for saving of inherent powers of High Court. It is absolutely clear that so far as the instant case is concerned, the application is filed to quash the FIR and, as such, the provision as prescribed under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be attracted. The application as filed will be under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (32) I must point out that this is purely a technical aspect of the matter and for such misquoting and wrong quoting of the provisions of law the petition filed, cannot be dismissed. (33) IT is pointed out that the petition filed is for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as provided under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure and whether such application is at all maintainable in the given circumstances of this case, is required to be decided. (34) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner in support of his prayer has taken the plea that petitioner has no connection with the place of occurrence. The property in question which is the subject matter of offence i. e. the submersible pump, was initially stationed on Dag No. 716 and the said property belongs to one Gostha Behari Adak. The pump in question was subsequently shifted as stated by the petitioner on Dag No. 3084 which belongs to the brother of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner has no connection with the said property. (35) IT was also contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that search and seizure conducted by the opposite party No. 2 and the officers accompanying him is illegal and no signature of the local witnesses was obtained on the search list. The family members of the petitioner was not approached. (35) IT was also contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that search and seizure conducted by the opposite party No. 2 and the officers accompanying him is illegal and no signature of the local witnesses was obtained on the search list. The family members of the petitioner was not approached. (36) IT is also the contention of the petitioner that he was absent at the time of such raid conducted by opposite party No. 2 and the officers accompanying him (37) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that so far as the present case is concerned, no action was taken by the authority in terms of part XII of the Act, which provides for investigation and enforcement. (38) IT was the contention of the petitioner that in case of unauthorized use of the electricity, the authority must first take steps for assessment but in this case nothing is shown that provisions as prescribed under sections 126 to 130 of the Act was at all complied. (39) IT was also contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no criminal prosecution can be instituted as the quantum of loss is not disclosed in the FIR and unless i. e. determined the question of imposing fine in terms of proviso to section 135 will not and does not arise. (40) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has also referred to a decision in ram Bhat and Anr. vs. Leelaram Shevaram (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. , reported in air 2007 (NOC) 599 (KER). (41) THE power of High Court in terms of provision under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure was considered by Honble Supreme Court on number of occasions and it will be fruitful to highlight the following decisions of the Honble Apex Court. (42) IN the State of Karnataka, vs. M. Devendrappa and Anr. , reported in 2002 (3) Supreme Court Cases 89, three-Judges Bench of Honble Supreme Court held: "exercise of power under section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether Civil or Criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist.)" (43) HONble Supreme Court in the above noted decision held as follows: "while exercising powers under the section 482 Cr. PC the Court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/ continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. " (44) THE Honble Supreme Court also observed that when exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. PC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained. (45) IN Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, reported in 1997 (2)Supreme Court Cases 397, three-Judges Bench of Honble Apex Court held that the High Court should sparingly and cautiously exercise the power under section 482 of the Code to prevent miscarriage of justice. (46) THE contention of the petitioner has to be examined on the basis of FIR lodged by opposite party No. 2 before the police station. In the FIR, it is categorically stated that the informant being accompanied by other officers, conducted raid in the place of the petitioner on 15. 2. 2007. The specific allegation against the petitioner was that he was using electricity in submersible pump by hooking. The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and the specific allegation against the petitioner is about theft of electricity. The offence as to theft of electricity is provided under section 135 of the Act and, as such, it cannot be said that the FIR does not disclose any commission of offence within the purview of section 135 of the Act. The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and the specific allegation against the petitioner is about theft of electricity. The offence as to theft of electricity is provided under section 135 of the Act and, as such, it cannot be said that the FIR does not disclose any commission of offence within the purview of section 135 of the Act. It is also evident from the certified copy of the FIR that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is running submersible pump by tapping with the help of PVC cable and the search list prepared after inspection shows that PVC cable along with one starter and auto switch was recovered and seized. The contention of the petitioner is that he has no connection with the place of occurrence and with the submersible pump as the pump was stationed on Dag No. 3084 which belongs to his brother, is required to be considered on the basis of evidence that may be adduced during trial. When the matter is required to be decided on consideration of evidence, it will not be proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and to accept the version of the petitioner at this stage. (47) IT may be pointed out in this context that purpose of investigation is to collect evidence and so far as the present case is concerned, investigation is in progress. The recital in FIR cannot be equated with that of a plaint in a civil suit. First Information Report which is lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of police station is for the purpose of registration of case and to initiate investigation. If the First Information Report discloses commission of cognizable offence, it is the duty of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to register the case and to initiate investigation. The First Information Report being an information lodged to the police disclosing commission of cognizable offence, it cannot be expected that the same unless exhaustive containing all the details, no action can be taken on such information. On receipt of First Information report, investigation is initiated by the police and during investigation, evidence is collected. Only when the police officer conducting investigation, collect evidence and finds that the materials are sufficient to call upon the accused to face trial for his alleged commission of offence, he submits chargesheet. On receipt of First Information report, investigation is initiated by the police and during investigation, evidence is collected. Only when the police officer conducting investigation, collect evidence and finds that the materials are sufficient to call upon the accused to face trial for his alleged commission of offence, he submits chargesheet. The process of collection of evidence is a continuous process and cannot be restricted only to First Information Report. So far as the present case is concerned, the first Information Report clearly indicates that inspection was conducted by opposite party No. 2 along with other officials in the house of petitioner. Search list also shows that house of petitioner was searched and certain articles such as PVC cable etc. was recovered and seized during the search conducted by the opposite party No. 2. It further appears that in the First Information Report, petitioner is alleged to have committed theft of electricity by unlawful means and, as such, it cannot be stated that the First Information Report does not disclose commission of cognizable offence. (48) WITH regard to the contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that authority in this case did not comply with the statutory requirement as provided under Part XII of the Act and, as such, they were precluded from lodging FIR for commission of offence punishable under section 135 of the Act. The provision under Part XII as contained in section 126 to section 130 of the Act deals with investigation and enforcement. (49) SECTION 126 of the Act provides for assessment in case of unauthorized use of electricity. (50) SECTION 127 stipulates for appeal by a person being aggrieved by an order passed under section 126. (51) SECTION 128 stipulates that in case of failure by a licensee to any provisions of the Act, certain steps as prescribed therein can be taken by the authority. (52) SECTION 129 provides for orders for securing compliance. (53) SECTION 130 prescribes for procedure for issuing direction by appropriate commission. (54) EVEN assuming for the sake of argument that in case of unauthorized use of electricity, the authority is empowered to take steps/actions under section 126 of the Act, but the same cannot be argued to be a pre-condition for initiating action under Part XIV of the Act. Part XIV provides for offences and penalties. (54) EVEN assuming for the sake of argument that in case of unauthorized use of electricity, the authority is empowered to take steps/actions under section 126 of the Act, but the same cannot be argued to be a pre-condition for initiating action under Part XIV of the Act. Part XIV provides for offences and penalties. theft of electricity has been made to be a cognizable offence and on successful conclusion of trial and only when the charge of theft of electricity is established beyond all reasonable doubts, a person committing the offence is liable to be punished as provided under section 135 of the Act. In case of theft of electricity or such other offences as provided under Part XIV, the authority is empowered to proceed against the wrongdoer and there appears to be no legal force in the submission made by learned Advocate for the petitioner that authority cannot take any action under Part XIV without first initiating action under Part XII of the Act. The action that may be taken under Part XIV is Independent and not controlled by the provision as prescribed under Part XII. Both the provisions are independent and are not mutually dependent on each other. (55) IT is also contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that so far the imposition of sentence is concerned, separate punishment is prescribed under clauses (I) and (II) of section 135 (1) of the Act. It appears that in case of consumption which does not exceed 10 kilowatt the fine will be three times the financial gain and for subsequent offence the fine will be more. Whereas if the consumption exceeds more than 10 kilowatt the amount of fine will be more. (56) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner contended that in the First information Report, there is no mention about the amount of consumption and, as such, the entire prosecution must be deemed to be defective from its very inception. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner simply in view of the fact that amount of consumption is required to be determined on consideration of evidence that may be adduced during trial. It cannot be the requirement of law that in the First Information Report the amount of consumption must be disclosed otherwise the First Information report will be illegal. It cannot be the requirement of law that in the First Information Report the amount of consumption must be disclosed otherwise the First Information report will be illegal. The quantity of consumption whether it is less than 10 kilowatt or more than 10 kilowatt, is required to be decided only at the stage of trial and on consideration of evidence. The offences that is covered under the act is primarily theft of electricity and while dealing with an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to consider and decide whether the First Information Report discloses commission of cognizable offence. If the First Information Report discloses commission of cognizable offence and when the information given in the First Information report is more or less specific, it will be premature on the part of the Court to jump to the conclusion only after going through certain papers as produced by the petitioner. Those documents are required to be established and proved under the provisions of Evidence Act and so far as the present case is concerned that stage has yet to be reached. (57) IN view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in the application and in my view it is not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of its power vested under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (58) POINT No. 2 is answered accordingly. (59) IN the result, the application fails and is dismissed. (60) THERE shall be no order as to costs. (61) CRIMINAL Section is directed to supply urgent certified copy as and when applied. Appeal dismissed.