ORDER Petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Gupta has prayed for issuance of writ / writs for quashing of the FIR of Kotwali P.S. Case No.640 of 2011, Special Electricity Case No.176 of 2011 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as for scraping the punitive bill furnished by Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. Md. Kamal Mustafa, Assistant Electrical Engineer had filed written report (Annexure-2) disclosing therein that after constituting raiding party consisting Arbind Kumar, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Pawan Kumar, Junior Engineer, Arbind Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer along with Executive Magistrate and Armed Forces conducted raid at the House No. 301 belonging to Sanjay Kumar Gupta, wherein for the present Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited is housed having Commercial Connection No.151150and found the meter tampered by having the seal broken as well as also found interlocking system of body of meter damaged and by this way he had opined that the consumer was stealthily consuming the electric energy on account of which Electricity Department had sustained loss to a tune of Rs.5,63,158/-. 3. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner has got one brother Sunil Kumar Gupta and they both own premises at Aasiyana Plaza which was given on rent to M/s Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited promoted by Government of India as per registered deed of agreement dated 14th December, 2010 (Annexure-1). As per Clause 6 of the deed of agreement, an obligation was cast upon M/s Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited to pay the electric consumption charge in respective of the premises by having a separate meter installed for the purpose. Then submitted that there happens to be two running non-domestic supply connections one in name of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, the petitioner and other in name of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited. Because of the fact that whole premises was taken on rent therefore Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited was also paying the bill against the charges shown against Consumer No.151150. It has further been submitted that on the date of alleged raid, petitioner was not at all present at his house on account of having been posted at Chattisgarh as Deputy Finance Manager, Coal India Ltd. South-East, Old Field and was stationed at Bishrampur. It has further been submitted that on the date of alleged raid, petitioner was not at all present at his house on account of having been posted at Chattisgarh as Deputy Finance Manager, Coal India Ltd. South-East, Old Field and was stationed at Bishrampur. Then it has been submitted that although petitioner stood identified as an owner of the house but the house in question never remained under his possession after having been let out in favour of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited vide registered deed of agreement and so it was the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited who was occupier of the premises on the alleged date of raid and so whatever been alleged, for that the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited is answerable. Then submitted that because of the fact that there happens to be no specific disclosure with regard to stealthily consuming the electric energy by the petitioner rather a fake allegation happens to be. Then submitted that taking into account the electronic meter installed by the Department wherein chips are being provided which could expose any kind of interference, and that has been taken into account in several judgment of the Hon’ble Court therefore, a circular has been issued by the BSEB vide letter no.122 dated 18-02-2010 directing the officers concerned to download all related information from the computer chips inserted in the electronic meter and analyze the download data before taking up an action under Section 126, 135 of the Electricity Act (Annexure-3). In the present case the authority had failed to comply with the direction and on account thereof, registration of the case is in utter violation thereof. In likewise manner it has also been submitted that punitive bill has illegally been raised against the petitioner which ought not to be on account of absence of petitioner being an occupier. It has further been submitted that there happens to be up-to-date payment of charges as per bill tendered by the electricity Department by State Holding Corporation of India Ltd. So submitted that in the aforesaid background the registration of the case as well as issuance of punitive bill are contrary to law and are accordingly liable to quashed. 4. Petitioner also referred AIR 2009 Cal. 4. Petitioner also referred AIR 2009 Cal. 1 , AIR 2007 Andhara Pradesh 265, (2012) 2 SCC 108 , 2012 (2) PLJR 229, AIR 2004 Madrash 66, 2011(1) PLJR 264 , 2010 (2) PLJR 186 , 2010(4) PLJR 863 , 2003(3) PLJR 514. At the other hand the learned counsel for vigilance has submitted that there happens to be specific disclosure in the written report itself that there has been interference from the end of consumer in the meter and by such action there has been pilferage of electric energy. Also submitted that tendering of punitive bill is permissible under Section135 of the Electricity Act itself as commanded by Bihar Electricity Supply Code under Chapter XI under the banner of provisional assessment rule 11.2.3(B)(C). Further submitted that when the premises was let out then it was incumbent upon the petitioner to inform the department and had got the connection temporarily disconnected as in that case tenant himself happens to be competent to be identified as a consumer. More so letting out the building to any person (consumer) to be the inter se agreement which does not affect or have any sort of adverse impact with regard to relationship amongst the licensee (Electricity Department) with consumer. From the pleading itself, it is evident that another meter is also there standing in name of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited. With regard to decoding of chip, it has been submitted that the same happens to be a new device. Petitioner had not mention that the meter installed at his premises does contain such facility. Moreover, now it is a matter of investigation and if it is traced out that there happens to be no interference then in that event the investigation will ultimately guided thereby. But for the present, the FIR discloses a prima facie case and consequent thereupon it cannot be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the prayer is not maintainable in light of presence of prima facie material coming out from the written report itself. 6. As per own pleading and Annexure (Annexure-1), it is evident that the house in question was let out on rent by the petitioner along with his brother in favour of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited. 6. As per own pleading and Annexure (Annexure-1), it is evident that the house in question was let out on rent by the petitioner along with his brother in favour of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited. From Clause 6 of the aforesaid Annexure-, it is evident that the parties have agreed in following terms: “The licensee shall pay all electricity consumption charges in respect of the licensed premises on actual basis as recorded by separate meter installed for the purpose.” 7. That means to say for the Non-domestic Supply Connection No.151150, the licensee was not at all permitted to avail the same so, it remained with the petitioner for which petitioner certainly happens to be answerable. Whether the aforesaid Premises No.301 was under occupation of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited is of no consequence as no liability in terms of agreement would be fixed over it be cause of non-permissibility of availing the consumption of energy through the meter already installed since before in name of owner. 8. None of the parties have averred the date of connection of Non-domestic Connection No.151150. None of the parties have contended that meter has chip facility. So far status of petitioner is concerned, it is an admitted one that he happens to be landlord and in that position whether there happens to be his vicarious liability and for that I would like to refer 2012 Criminal Law Journal 1418, para-7 wherein it has been observed:- 7. Learned counsel for the Appellant has strenuously contended that the Appellant cannot be held liable as he was the owner and not the user of the premises. The photocopy of the rent agreement does not prove conclusively that the Appellant was not the user and even if the users were Rajiv and Pawan respectively, the Appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 150 of the Act in view of the allegations of abetment of offence. The photocopy of the rent agreement does not prove conclusively that the Appellant was not the user and even if the users were Rajiv and Pawan respectively, the Appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 150 of the Act in view of the allegations of abetment of offence. It would be relevant to note the definition of the word “consumer” under Section 2(15) of the Act which states that: 2(15) “consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be; A reading of Section 2(15) with Section 135 of the Act sows that both the user and the owner of the premises fall under the definition of the consumer and are thus liable to be punished, if illegal abstraction of energy is found at the premises”. 9. At the present juncture Annexure-6 letter address by Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited to the Executive Engineer Bihar State Electricity Board dated 29-12-2007 wherefrom it is evident that apart from two meters one having standing in name of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited bearing no.267770 and another bearing no.151150 in name of landlord of Sanjay Gupta, one other meter was also existing after installation of electronic meter (two electronic and one old meter) and so again on this score there happens to be some sort of contradiction in consonance with the pleading as is evident from para-7. The aforesaid Annexure-6 is again being confused with Annexure-7 which shows presence of non-electronic meter, second electronic meter and there happens to be complain on that very score. 10. It has also not been pleaded on behalf of petitioner that they have been proceeded with by the Department as an unauthorized user in accordance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Had the same been pleaded certainly would have flashed a different colour. 10. It has also not been pleaded on behalf of petitioner that they have been proceeded with by the Department as an unauthorized user in accordance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Had the same been pleaded certainly would have flashed a different colour. In the aforesaid background when the FIR has gone through, it is evident that an allegation on its face shows presence of prima facie case where upon it goes out of interference. 11. So far scope of provision of assessment is concerned, that is found to be out of purview of criminal writ as it appears to be a civil liability. Consequent thereupon, I do not see any cogent ground to quash the instant FIR. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.