ORDER The Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 6/8/2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 (G.R. No. 85 of 2009) registered for the offence under Section 420, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner, has further prayed for directing for further investigation in the case. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of written report submitted by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Lakhisarai an FIR vide Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 was registered on 25/1/2009 for the offence under Section 420, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Electricity Act arraying opposite party no. 2/ Sri Nirmal Kumar Kanodia, proprietor of M/s Balajee Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Lakhisarai and opposite party no. 3 / Sri G.K. Sinha, Manager as accused persons. As per the written report, on 3/9/2008 in the commercial premises of M/s Balajee Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Khairi Mahisona, Lakhisarai, an electric consumer vide consumer no. KHR-34/HT having energy meter no. BEBO8487, the informant along with the representative of M/s Secure Meter Ltd. and officials namely (1) Sri Prem Kumar Singh, Electrical Executive Engineer, Commercial Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (headquarter), (2) Sri Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Electrical Executive Engineer, Gardanibagh, PESU, Patna, (3) Sri Mirtuza Helal, Electrical Executive Engineer, Bankipore, PESU, Patna (4) Sri Virendra Kumar Chaudhary, Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Munger (5) Sri Rajmohan Prasad, Electrical Executive Engineer , MRT Division, Munger, (6) Sri Rajkishore Rai, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Lakhisarai inspected the commercial premises. During inspection, in the electric meter of the consumer from all sides of the meter box holographic seal was found scratched. After opening the meter box energy meter was examined from inside. During examination in the side wall of the meter no continuity was found. In holographic seal there was indication of cutting. Accordingly, the said meter was removed and since new meter was not available, electric supply was directly connected without the meter and supply was resumed. After opening the meter box energy meter was examined from inside. During examination in the side wall of the meter no continuity was found. In holographic seal there was indication of cutting. Accordingly, the said meter was removed and since new meter was not available, electric supply was directly connected without the meter and supply was resumed. For further enquiry, the said meter was sealed and the paper having signature of the representative of the consumer was pasted on the box. During the entire inspection the representative of the consumer namely Sri G.K. Sinha was present. Thereafter, Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “CPRI”) was requested for testing of meter in its laboratory and after obtaining consent from the Institute date was fixed in between 19/1/2009 to 22/1/2009 for meter inspection. Thereafter, from the commercial department of the Bihar State Electricity Board the consumer was given information regarding the place of inspection of the meter, date and time and he was requested to remain present. In the Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore, the meter was thoroughly examined and CPRI subsequently handed over the said meter no. BEB08487 along with report. Thereafter direction was given for registering FIR. As per the report of CPRI it was found that the consumer had tampered with the meter installed in his premises. As per the report welding of ultra sonic welded plate on both side wall of the meter was removed and thereafter by the use of gum it was attached and as such it was easily removed. In the holographic seal on the side wall of electric meter of the consumer tampering was found. As per conclusion of the report the consumer had tampered with the meter and due to the said tampering there was obstacle in assessing the actual electric consumption. It was assessed that the Board had suffered approximately Rs. 3.50 Crore (three crore fifty lakh rupees) and illegal benefit was obtained by the consumer. However, it was indicated that actual amount of loss will be calculated by the competent officer on the basis of record available in the office. Along with the written report as evidence the said meter no. BEB08487 which was removed on 3/9/2008 as well as inspection report was submitted. However, it was indicated that actual amount of loss will be calculated by the competent officer on the basis of record available in the office. Along with the written report as evidence the said meter no. BEB08487 which was removed on 3/9/2008 as well as inspection report was submitted. Along with the FIR besides the aforesaid materials meter examination report prepared by CPRI (total 25 pages) and inspection report which was conducted on 3/9/2008 etc. were also enclosed. On the basis of written report of Sri Tuneshwar Prasad Singh, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Lakhisarai an FIR vide Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 dated 25/1/2009 was registered for the offence under Section 420, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The officer- in-charge namely Sri Uma Kant himself took up the investigation. After investigation final report vide final report no. 185 of 2009 dated 25/5/2009 was submitted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai as “mistake of fact”. After receipt of the final report informant was noticed and finally, by order dated 6/8/2009 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final report, which has been assailed by the Board in the present proceeding. 3. Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ Board submits that the order impugned is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the Board was never intimated regarding submission of the final report by the Police and the learned Magistrate, in a perfunctory manner, has proceeded in the case and illegally accepted the final report submitted by the Police. He submits that prima facie it was a case of theft of electricity to the tune of more than Rs. 3 Crore but the Police after registering FIR, in complete perfunctory manner and lightening speed, concluded the investigation and submitted final report as “mistake of fact”. 4. In this case, by order dated 11/4/2013 while directing for issuance of notice to opposite party no. 2 and 3 this court had summoned the record of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, which has been received and kept on record. 5. In this case, opposite party no. 2 and 3 who were arrayed as accused in the case have appeared through Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel. 6. 5. In this case, opposite party no. 2 and 3 who were arrayed as accused in the case have appeared through Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel. 6. Sri A.K. Ojha has tried to persuade the court that police in hectic and perfunctory manner has submitted report in favour of the accused as well as in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also the case has proceeded in similar manner. By way of referring to the order sheet of the court below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case FIR was received in the court of CJM on 27/1/2009 and final report along with case diary was received in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30/5/2009. After receipt of final report while directing for issuance of notice to the informant, the learned Magistrate fixed the next date to 17/8/2009. Subsequently, in the order sheet some cutting was made and the date of 17/8/2009 was made as 17/6/2009. He further submits that from the order sheet it is evident that notice was issued vide D.B. No. 286/09. The notice on the informant namely Sri Tuneshwar Prasad Singh, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division , Lakhisarai, who had already retired by the time, notice was served on his residential address on a date which was Sunday i.e. on 14/6/2009 and the said service report was received only on 15/6/2009. He submits that the FIR was lodged by the informant in his official capacity and as such, in all fairness, notice on informant was required to be served on the official address of the informant, which was Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Lakhisarai whereas, notice was got served on his residence i.e. within the jurisdiction of Bakhtiyarpur Police Station, Bakhtiyarpur, Patna and on the next date service report was received on record i.e. on 15/6/2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the service report, which is on record and he submits that even the report, which is on record, indicates that there is cutting in the number of D.B. Instead of D.B. No. 286 of 2009, it has been made as 289 of 2009. He further submits that order sheet indicates that notice was directed to be issued on 30/5/2009, but the signature of learned CJM was done on 3/6/2009. He further submits that order sheet indicates that notice was directed to be issued on 30/5/2009, but the signature of learned CJM was done on 3/6/2009. He further submits that once in a case final report was received and the learned Magistrate had desired hearing the informant, the court would have given longer time, which appears to have been granted and the next date was fixed as 17/8/2009. However since the notice was got served on the residential address at Bakhtiyarpur of Sri Tuneshwar Prasad Singh/ informant on 14/6/2009 and it was brought on record on 15/6/2009, to get the order of acceptance of final report the date was changed from 17/8/2009 to 17/6/2009. After 17/6/2009 again short adjournment was granted and date was fixed to 22/6/2009. Thereafter, again next date was fixed to 26/6/2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to the order sheet of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, has tried to demonstrate that in hectic manner everything was done and final report was accepted by the learned Magistrate without information to the office of the Board and on this ground he submits that the order accepting final report is liable to be set aside and it requires further investigation. 7. Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 8. In this case, the opposite party no.2 and 3 have filed number of affidavits. Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and 3 has tried to persuade the court that no offence is made out and since there was no case against the opposite parties, the Police rightly after investigation has submitted final report showing the case as “mistake of fact”. He further submits that since in the case Sri Tuneshwar Prasad Singh, Assistant Electrical Engineer was the informant, notice was validly served on him. He submits that even thereafter, on number of dates, since the informant did not appear, the learned Magistrate had no option but to accept the final report and rightly the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed order accepting final report. He has further argued that after lodging of the FIR the private opposite party no. 2 and 3 had approached this court for quashing of the FIR vide Cr. He has further argued that after lodging of the FIR the private opposite party no. 2 and 3 had approached this court for quashing of the FIR vide Cr. W.J.C. No. 182 of 2009 which after submission of final report and its acceptance was disposed of on 11/5/2010. He further submits that though in the FIR it was alleged that the Board had suffered loss of 3.50 Crore rupees but subsequently by the competent authority the loss has been reduced to the tune of Rs. 94 lakh. He submits that after the order of the assessing authority opposite party no. 2 and 3 have again approached this court by filing a writ petition vide CWJC No. 14461 of 2013 which is pending. In sum and substance, it has been argued on behalf of private opposite parties that no irregularity or tampering was found either at the time of inspection or during investigation and the police has rightly submitted final report. Neither there is any irregularity in investigation nor the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed any error in accepting the final report. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 3 submits that there is very limited scope for further investigation and in support of his submission he has placed reliance on (2009) 7 SCC 685 (Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna And Another) and (1997) 1 SCC 361 (Randhir Singh Rana Vs. State (Delhi Administration). 9. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the entire materials available on record. Even, I myself, have examined the lower court record, which contains order sheet as well as original case diary. It must be clarified that while hearing the present petition this court is not required to go into the merit of the case and examine whether accusation against the accused persons are true or not. On this issue this court is not at all required to record any opinion or finding but fact remains that on bare perusal of the FIR it is evident that it discloses commission of cognizable offences. The FIR itself gives tentative picture of theft of electricity to the tune of Rs. 3.50 crore. The FIR is primarily based on the inspection report, which was conducted in the commercial premises of opposite party no. 2 and 3 on 3/9/2008. The FIR itself gives tentative picture of theft of electricity to the tune of Rs. 3.50 crore. The FIR is primarily based on the inspection report, which was conducted in the commercial premises of opposite party no. 2 and 3 on 3/9/2008. As per the FIR tampering in the meter was found. It further discloses that the meter was sealed in presence of the representative of M/s Balaji Ingnot India Ltd., who is non else but opposite party no. 3. The FIR further discloses that the meter was removed and sealed and thereafter it was sent to CPRI for depth examination of the meter in question. The FIR further discloses that the CPRI reported tampering in the meter. Meaning thereby, that on perusal of the FIR there was sufficient material for a fair and independent investigation for its logical end. In the FIR it was categorically stated that inspection in the commercial premises was done by the Board officials, which consisted of about 7 officers of the Board and also representative of M/s Secure Meter Ltd. Once the FIR disclosed that inspection was conducted in presence of such officials who were directly witnesses of the occurrence, during investigation it was mandatory on the part of the investigating agency to take statement of those witnesses. In normal course it was not necessary for this court to examine the case diary but since it has been alleged by the petitioner’s side that in hectic and perfunctory manner Police has submitted final report, this court was persuaded to examine the case diary. On perusal of case diary it is evident that police case diary contains only 20 paragraphs. In the 1st paragraph of case diary the investigating officer has incorporated the FIR. In 2nd paragraph restatement of informant was recorded. In paragraph no. 3, 4 and 5 nothing has been indicated regarding any investigation. However, in paragraph no. 6 which is dated 26/1/2009 the I.O. has recorded the fact regarding the place of occurrence. In 7th paragraph one of the officials whose name has been mentioned in the FIR was examined and virtually after 26/1/2009 the I.O. had done nothing. However, on 13/4/2009 i.e. in paragraph no. However, in paragraph no. 6 which is dated 26/1/2009 the I.O. has recorded the fact regarding the place of occurrence. In 7th paragraph one of the officials whose name has been mentioned in the FIR was examined and virtually after 26/1/2009 the I.O. had done nothing. However, on 13/4/2009 i.e. in paragraph no. 11 the I.O. has recorded statement of one Sri Rameshwar Prasad, who was not the member of the inspecting team nor he was posted in the Electric Supply Sub Division, Lakhisarai on the relevant time and finally, on 2/5/2009 the investigating officer on the basis of supervision note has come to the conclusion that FIR was “mistake of fact” and order may be passed for final report as “mistake of fact”. Thereafter, finally on the basis of supervision note final report showing the case as “mistake of fact” was submitted vide final report no. 185 of 2009 dated 25/5/2009. The court is surprised with the conduct of the investigating agency. In a case where there was accusation of theft of electricity causing loss to the Board approximately to the tune of Rs. 3.50 crore the investigating officer has proceeded in a complete perfunctory manner. Perusal of the case diary, in such circumstances, creates serious doubt on the role of investigating agency as well as on the conduct of the investigating officer. In respect of theft of electricity which is rampant in all over India the Apex Court in a case reported in (2006) 8 SCC 629 (Jagmodhan Mehatabsing Gujaral and Others Vs. State Of Maharashtra) has taken very serious view. This court may not do better than to quote only one paragraph of the decision i.e. paragraph no. 29, which is as follows:— 29. Large-scale theft of electricity is a very alarming problem faced by all the State Electricity Boards in our country, which is causing loss to the State revenue running in hundreds of crores of rupees every year. In our considered view , after proper adjudication of the cases of all those who are found to be guilty of the offence of committing theft of electricity; apart from the sentence of conviction, the court should invariably impose heavy fine making theft of electricity a wholly non-profitable venture. In our considered view , after proper adjudication of the cases of all those who are found to be guilty of the offence of committing theft of electricity; apart from the sentence of conviction, the court should invariably impose heavy fine making theft of electricity a wholly non-profitable venture. The most effective step to curb this tendency perhaps could be to discontinue the supply of electricity to those consumers temporarily or permanently who have been caught abstracting electricity in a clandestine manner on more than one occasion. The legislature may consider incorporating this suggestion as a form of punishment by amending Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910.” 10. Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court referred hereinabove. The learned court below before whom final repot was submitted has also not proceeded in a manner better than the investigating agency which has conducted investigation in the present case. On perusal of the order sheet it is evident that on 30/5/2009 final report along with case diary was received. The learned Magistrate has rightly directed for issuance of notice to the informant, but on perusal of order dated 30/5/2009 it appears that in the date i.e. 17/8/2009 which was the next date over writing has been made and “8” has been turned as “6”. Meaning thereby, that date, after overwriting from 17/8/2009 was done as 17/6/2009. In normal course once the learned Magistrate was desiring to issue notice to the informant for hearing on final report, sufficient time was required to be given, not only 17 days. Service of notice requires some reasonable time. However, in the case next date after over writing was done from 17/8/2009 to 17/6/2009. Again thereafter the court is surprised as to under what circumstances on the date which was a holiday i.e. Sunday, on 14/6/2009 notice was served on the informant who was leading a retired life and said notice was served on his residential address within the district of Patna at Bakhtiyarpur whereas final report was submitted in the Court of C.J.M., Lakhisarai. This fact is evident from service report which has been kept on record. The fact that 14/6/2009 was a holiday has been brought on record by the petitioner by way of filing 2nd supplementary affidavit on 16th July 2014. This fact is evident from service report which has been kept on record. The fact that 14/6/2009 was a holiday has been brought on record by the petitioner by way of filing 2nd supplementary affidavit on 16th July 2014. He has brought on record a calendar to show that the date 14/6/2009 was Sunday. Service of notice on informant who had lodged the FIR in the capacity of Assistant Electrical Engineer after his retirement creates serious doubt and many things can be inferred from such conduct which in normal course requires thorough investigation. The service report was surprisingly received on record on the next date i.e. on 15/6/2009. Again the learned court below has proceeded in hectic manner and after 17/6/2009 next date was fixed to 22/6/2009. Thereafter 26/6/2009 , 30/6/2009, 10/7/2009, 17/7/2009, 23/7/2009 and finally on 6/8/2009 in absence of informant final report was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 11. It further appears that after lodging of FIR, the opposite party no. 2 and 3 had approached this court by filing a writ petition vide Cr.W.J.C. No. 182 of 2009 in which the opposite party no. 2 & 3 (who were petitioners of the writ petition) had prayed for quashing of FIR of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 and for direction to the respondents not to take any coercive step during the pendency of the writ petition. However, in the said case on 4/6/2009 while directing for listing the case on 25th June 2009 a bench of this court directed that “ till then no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioners, namely, Nirmal Kumar Kanodia @ Nirmal Kanodia and Gopal Krishna Sinha in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38/09.” The interim order was extended on 29/6/2009 and 28/7/2009. The interim order whereby this court had directed not to take any coercive step was noticed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which is evident from order dated 16/7/2009 passed in G.R. No. 85 of 2009. This shows regarding the knowledge of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of interim order of this court dated 16/7/2009 and pendency of writ petition. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate even during the pendency of the writ petition i.e. Cr.W.J.C. No. 182 of 2009 wherein interim protection was given, by order dated 6/8/2009 accepted the final report. 12. This shows regarding the knowledge of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of interim order of this court dated 16/7/2009 and pendency of writ petition. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate even during the pendency of the writ petition i.e. Cr.W.J.C. No. 182 of 2009 wherein interim protection was given, by order dated 6/8/2009 accepted the final report. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above which is borne out from the record which includes police case diary and order sheet of the court below in G.R. No. 85 of 2009, the court is of the opinion that since in the present case FIR was lodged by the Assistant Electrical Engineer in its official capacity, there was no need to serve the notice on the informant in his personal capacity on his residential address, but notice was required to be served on the official address of the informant, which has not been done in the present case. Similarly in view of the material which is reflected from the case diary it is evident that the investigating agency has proceeded in complete perfunctory manner, rather the conduct of the investigating agency creates serious doubt in the mind of the court. The investigating officer has recorded statement of only one witness who was one of the member of inspecting team besides informant. The I.O. has not bothered to examine other witnesses who were members of the inspecting team which had done inspection on 3/9/2008 in the commercial premises of opposite party no. 2 and 3, nor the investigating officer has bothered to examine the CPRI report or the officials of the CPRI. Only in few paragraphs such a big case was given final shape and final report was submitted in favour of the accused persons showing the case as “mistake of fact”. Normally this court would have directed the same investigating agency to further investigate the case but keeping in view the fact that circumstance casts shadow on the part of the investigating agency it would not be appropriate to direct same agency for further investigation. Moreover during investigation officials of CPRI, which is situated at Bangalore, are also required to be examined, meaning thereby that it would be inter state investigation. Moreover during investigation officials of CPRI, which is situated at Bangalore, are also required to be examined, meaning thereby that it would be inter state investigation. In all fairness, the court considers that this matter can well be investigated by an investigating agency having branches at different places, which according to the court is Central Bureau of Investigation. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances, the order dated 6/8/2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009, G.R. No. 85 of 2009 whereby final report of police as “mistake of fact” was accepted, is hereby set aside. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B. Patna, may conduct further investigation in the matter so that the case may come to its logical end. The Court expects that after the entire record is handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the C.B.I. may conclude further investigation preferably within a period of six months. It is made clear that while further investigating the case C.B.I. would be at liberty to enlarge the scope of investigation and also examine the conspiracy angle and the offence of shielding the accused persons. The Central Bureau of Investigation may get the matter investigated under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B., Patna or any other Superintendent of Police of C.B.I. 14. Registry is directed to provide photo copy of entire record including entire order sheet of G.R. No. 85 of 2009 (arising out of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009), photo copy of the case diary and supervision note in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 as and when requisitioned by the C.B.I. After handing over photo copy of entire pleading, order sheet of the court below, case diary and supervision note, the Registry is required to remit back the Lower Court Record forthwith. 15. It goes without saying that during further investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer, the learned District Judge, Lakhisarai may also render full co-operation. 16. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I. for its communication to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B. Patna for further action. ?