Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1246 (JHR)

Mahesh Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2008-11-11

D.K.SINHA

body2008
JUDGMENT : D.K.Sinha,J.The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the F.I.R. related to Bariatu P.S. Case No.80 of 2008 corresponding to G.R.No.1910 of 2008 instituted for the alleged offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Ranchi. The petitioner further requested for direction upon the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to reinstall the meter No.MOR-1549 which was in the name of his father Shatrughan Oraon, H.S. Road, Morabadi as the meter was illegally seized by the Respondent No.3 at the time of conducting raids and to declare that the allegation of revenue loss of Rs.5,06,121/-against the petitioner was arbitrary, illegal and tainted with mala fide design being the fictitious claim. Yet, the Counsel for the petitioner has mainly pressed for the quashment of the F.I.R., which was instituted against the petitioner Mahesh Oraon and therefore other reliefs as sought for are not being considered. 2. The factual matrix of the instant case which stands narrated in the written report of the informant-Respondent No.3 presented before the Bariatu police on 20.05.2008 was that the raiding party of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Electricity Board) had conducted raids at different places on tip off. The raiding party was consisting of Ashok Kumar (Junior Engineer), Kaushal Kumar Srivastava (Junior Engineer), members of the Special Task Force and the armed police of Bariatu Police Station besides, the informant Nathan Rajak, Assistant Electrical Engineer (R.M.C.H.) Electric Supply SubDivision, Bariatu, Ranchi who led the party. It was alleged that in course of raid at the Ice Factory the petitioner was found running the ice factory by illegally taping the power supply line with the help of hook consuming load of 21 H.P. and thereby caused loss to the J.S.E.B. assessed to the tune of Rs.5,06,121/-. The informant respondent alleged that electric supply to the Ice Factory vide Consumer No. KLT.-3-MOR-1547 was disconnected against standing dues of Rs.97,347/-. The informant instituted criminal case by the common written report against several persons in the same sequence for the alleged electricity theft. The informant respondent alleged that electric supply to the Ice Factory vide Consumer No. KLT.-3-MOR-1547 was disconnected against standing dues of Rs.97,347/-. The informant instituted criminal case by the common written report against several persons in the same sequence for the alleged electricity theft. The defence of the petitioner before the Court of C.J.M. was that he was not the proprietor of the Ice Factory as it was running in the name of his father Shatrughan Oraon who was the real owner and that though his bail was refused by the C.J.M., Ranchi but it was considered by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on condition of payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-with the Electricity Board and to deposit the balance amount within 1 ½ months in B.P.No.508/08 (Annexure-2). 3. The prosecution admitted that electric connection was given to the consumer in the name of the father of the petitioner Shatrughan Oraon vide Consumer No. KLT-3-MOR 1547 for running the Ice Factory and during electricity consumption in the Ice Factory a sum of Rs.97,347/-fell due to the consumer. It was clarified that the electricity which was supplied fell in the category of LT-18 & 21. The consumer Shatrughan Oraon through the bill No.19 dated 14.12.2007 was called upon to clear the said dues till 29.12.2007. The learned Counsel submitted that as per terms of agreement between the consumer Shatrughan Oraon and the J.S.E.B. dated 29th March, 2003 the latter (Electricity Board) agreed to supply electricity under Industrial Consumption Policy (Annexure-4) in the Plot No. 43 appertaining to Khata No.1402, Morabadi where Shatrughan Oraon was running an Ice Factory. The learned Counsel pointed out that prior to the said agreement there was separate agreement and the Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division No.II, Ranchi through its letter No.1341 dated 20.05.2002 sanctioned electric supply of 21H.P. to Shatrughan Oraon on certain terms and conditions (Annexure5). 4. Learned Counsel further explained that for the realization of the amount due to the tune of Rs.97,347/-, a Certificate Case No. 742/2007-08 was initiated against the father of the petitioner Shatrughan Oraon before Certificate Officer and on receiving notice the consumer Shatrughan Oraon deposited the entire dues through Bank Draft No.61537 dated 25.06.2008 against the receipt (Annexure-6). 4. Learned Counsel further explained that for the realization of the amount due to the tune of Rs.97,347/-, a Certificate Case No. 742/2007-08 was initiated against the father of the petitioner Shatrughan Oraon before Certificate Officer and on receiving notice the consumer Shatrughan Oraon deposited the entire dues through Bank Draft No.61537 dated 25.06.2008 against the receipt (Annexure-6). During the raid conducted in the leadership of the informant respondent the meter as installed in the ice factory was in running condition duly sealed and its final reading was recorded 63180 KWH but the meter was broken and removed by the raiding party on the instance of the informant Respondent No.3 and a certificate to such effect was given to the consumer Shatrughan Oraon (Annexure-7). 5. To sum up the argument the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner Mahesh Oraon was not at all concerned with the alleged theft of electric energy nevertheless, it could be presumed that there was no occasion for such theft as the meter was found in running condition when it was removed from the ice factory by the raiding party. Therefore, the loss of revenue as projected by the prosecution was an imaginary loss without any basis. The petitioner was arrested without any legal evidence against him and was wrongfully detained in custody until he was released on bail by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi subject to condition of payment of the entire amount of Rs. Five lacks and odds being the loss incurred to the Electricity Board, for which the petitioner was not at all concerned. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (J.S.E.B.) concisely submitted that admittedly the petitioner was not the consumer in this case but he was found taping the power supply line by using hooks for running the Ice Factory in the name of his father and thereby he committed the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which speaks;- “ Whoever, dishonestly tapes, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, under-ground or under water lines or cables or service wires or service facilities of a licensee so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.” 7. Advancing his argument learned Counsel for the J.S.E.B. submitted that the informant-Respondent No.3 was Assistant Electrical Engineer (R.M.C.H.) Electric Supply Sub-Division, Bariatu, Ranchi duly authorized by the Department of Energy, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 1605 dated 17.07.2000 to enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity has been or is being used unauthorizedly and also to remove of such devices instruments wires and any other facilitators or article which has been or is being used for unauthorized use of electricity, under the provision of Section 135 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Counsel pointed out that theft of electricity is not only confined to a consumer or the licensee rather Section 135 of the Act clearly mandates that whoever dishonestly taps the power supply line shall be liable for prosecution and therefore, the defence of the petitioner that he was not the consumer of J.S.E.B. does not render him immunity from the alleged offence. The prosecution case is clear that when the premises of the Ice Factory was raided the petitioner was found in occupation of the Factory and therefore, his prosecution under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is valid and legal which does not call for interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 8. As regards other prayer as made in the writ petition by the petitioner herein the learned Counsel submitted that since the petitioner is not the consumer such relief cannot be granted to him and therefore, no order need be passed in respect of other reliefs as claimed. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner has consistently taken the defence that he was not the consumer and therefore, his criminal prosecution as brought about by the respondents was liable to be quashed. The specific defence was that the Ice Factory was running in the name of his father and that his father was the consumer of the electricity supplied by the J.S.E.B. under agreement for running Ice Factory and that the Certificate Case was also initiated against him for the pending dues. The specific defence was that the Ice Factory was running in the name of his father and that his father was the consumer of the electricity supplied by the J.S.E.B. under agreement for running Ice Factory and that the Certificate Case was also initiated against him for the pending dues. But the fact remains that the petitioner was found illegally taping the electricity with the help of hooks, connecting power supply line consuming load of 21 H.P. for running ice factory, which attracts the offence under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 prima facie without prejudice to the merit of G.R.No.1910 of 2008 pending before the Trial Court. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere in his criminal prosecution. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.