Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1981 (PAT)

Ganga Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2010-08-27

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri Uday Chandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Binay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 25.1.2001 passed by Shri B.N. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai in Nagar Police Station Case No. 190 of 2000, G.R. No. 1609 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was further prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 14.10.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in the said case. In this case, order of cognizance was passed for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 . 3. Short fact of the case is that a raid was conducted by the official of the Bihar State Electricity Board in the premises of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner was committing theft of electricity. The electricity official assessed the loss caused to the Electricity Board to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and as such an F.I.R. was lodged. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted and at the stage of charge, petition for discharge was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Besides raising other points, it was also argued that the petitioner, in compliance with the direction of the Electricity Board, had already deposited Rs. 15,000/-, the loss which was suffered earlier by the Electricity Board. On the aforesaid ground, prayer was made to discharge the petition. 4. Shri Uday Chandra Pratap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in such situation, the learned Magistrate was required to take lenient view particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner, who is a lady and she had already deposited the entire amount, which were demanded by the Electricity Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner ,has referred to page-27 of the petition, Which is a copy of Receipt No. 107339 dated 19.7.2000. It was submitted that by the said receipt, the petitioner had already deposited amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner ,has referred to page-27 of the petition, Which is a copy of Receipt No. 107339 dated 19.7.2000. It was submitted that by the said receipt, the petitioner had already deposited amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to page-28 of the petition, which is a letter dated 21.7.2000 issued under the signature of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division addressed to the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai. By the said letter, it was intimated that the petitioner had already deposited the cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 5. Keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of the present case and deposit of the amount as well as pendency of the case from 2001 before this Court with a view to just decision in the matter, the Court is inclined to interfere with the order of rejection of discharge petition. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.10.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Nagar Police Station Case No. 190 of 2000. G.R. No. 1609 of 2000 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.