JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Three petitioners, who are officers of the Electric Supply Division, Katihar, Bihar State Electricity Board, have approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 8.8.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Katihar Town P.S. Case No.82 of 2005. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 337, 338, 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of one Pinku Kumar of village Sheoji Nagar, Katihar, an F.I.R. vide Katihar Town P.S. Case No.82 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 337, 338, 304A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three accused persons i.e. petitioners. Petitioner no.1, at the relevant time, was Executive Engineer, petitioner no.2, was Assistant Engineer and petitioner no.3 was Junior Engineer in the Electric Supply Division at Katihar. It was disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 5.2.2005 at 3.00 P.M., the informant noticed high voltage in his house and thereafter, he rushed to off the main switch and thereafter, he got electric shock and he become unconscious. Subsequently, he was carried to the hospital and after gaining his conscious, he came to know that in the locality besides the informant, several others had also received electric shock and two persons died due to electric shock. It was further disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant that on earlier occasion, the resident of the same locality, had made complaint to the petitioners for removing the defect, which was regularly occurring in the transformer. It was alleged that the accused persons had not taken any notice to the earlier complaint. After registering F.I.R., police investigated the same and subsequently, after examining number of witnesses, charge sheet was submitted against the three petitioners and the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of the offence. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. Earlier in this case, notice was issued and thereafter, on 19.3.2008, stay of proceeding in the court below was granted by this court. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. Earlier in this case, notice was issued and thereafter, on 19.3.2008, stay of proceeding in the court below was granted by this court. Subsequently, on 16.9.2008, this petition was admitted for hearing and in the meanwhile, interim order of stay dated 19.3.2008 was directed to remain operative. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Shri Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has raised several grounds assailing the order of cognizance. It was firstly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners completely failed to ignore that there were restriction for taking cognizance against the public servant of the Electricity Board as prescribed under section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Sections 81 and 82 of the Electric Supply Act, 1948. It was submitted that without any prosecution sanction granted by the competent authority i.e. State, the learned Magistrate has proceeded with the case. It has been submitted that order of cognizance is liable to be set aside only on the ground of absence of prosecution sanction as prescribed under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Sections 81 and 82 of the Electric Supply Act, 1948. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his stand, has heavily relied on a single Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2009(1)PLJR 577 (Balbir Prasad Bagis Vs. State of Bihar). It has been submitted that the petitioners had committed no offence and the learned Magistrate, without any material as well as in absence of the sanction for prosecution, has illegally taken cognizance of the offence. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order of cognizance. 5. Shri Abhay Kumar Singh No.1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted by Shri Singh that for taking shelter either under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 or under Sections 81 and 82 of the Electric Supply Act, 1948, it was necessary to establish that actions were taken by the accused persons in good faith. It has been submitted by Shri Singh that for taking shelter either under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 or under Sections 81 and 82 of the Electric Supply Act, 1948, it was necessary to establish that actions were taken by the accused persons in good faith. In absence of establishment of this fact that steps were taken in good faith, no one can get any protection under the aforesaid provisions. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, in respect of Balbir Prasad Bagiss case (supra), has submitted that the present case stands on a different footing and the petitioner may not get any benefit from the judgment of the said case. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition. 6. Shri Shiwesh Chandra Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the stand taken by Shri Abhay Kumar Singh and he further submitted that the petitioners have come before this Court against the order of cognizance and as such this Court my not interfere at this initial stage. It was submitted by Shri Mishra that under the provisions of the criminal procedure Code, other remedies are available to the petitioners and it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present case at the stage of charge. It was submitted that this is not the stage for examining those facts. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. After going through the F.I.R., it is evident that even before the occurrence, the petitioners were well intimated by the resident of the locality to remove the defects in the electric supply. Moreover, in the present case, at least two innocent persons had died due to electrocution and number of persons had received serious injuries including the informant. 8. In view of seriousness of allegation as well as the fact that the matter was thoroughly investigated by the investigating agency and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted, the court is of the opinion that while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. So far as application of provisions, which were cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the court is of the opinion that in all the provisions, the word good faith is mentioned. So far as application of provisions, which were cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the court is of the opinion that in all the provisions, the word good faith is mentioned. So far as the question of taking action in good faith is concerned, cannot be looked into or examined by this Court, while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those facts are required to be examined by the concerned court where matter is pending. So far as judgment of Balbir Prasad Bagiss case (supra) is concerned, I am in agreement with the submission advanced by Shri Abhay Kumar Singh that in the said case, it was not considered as to whether actions were taken by the accused persons in good faith or not. However, in the present case, there is specific averment made in the F.I.R. that prior to the occurrence, the accused persons were intimated to take steps for removing defects in the electric supply. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that no benefit can be given to the petitioners in view of judgment of Balbir Prasad Bigiss case (supra). 9. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, I am of the opinion that while taking cognizance, learned Magistrate has committed no error and the petition has got no merit. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 11. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. 13. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is an old one and same has remained pending before the court for a long time, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without any further delay.