Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2712 (ALL)

VINAY KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-08-05

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the power corporation and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records. The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 09.06.2016, passed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 5, Saharanpur in Special Case No. 95 of 2015 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar Tyagi), under Section 135 Electricity Act, Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur whereby charge has been framed against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is having a legal electricity connection of 10 HP since the year 1999 for the purpose of running his tube-well. It is further contended that in the villages of U.P. no electricity meters are fixed in the houses and a fixed amount is paid by the farmers to the Electricity Department for running the tube-wells. The applicant also pays Rs.900/- per month which is evident from a perusal of the consumer bill book, photocopy whereof is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Learned counsel has submitted that the complainant / opposite party no. 2 illegally made a demand of money from the applicant and since the applicant did not fulfill his demand, he implicated the applicant in electricity theft case. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the police, without a fair investigation and in a routine and mechanical manner, submitted charge sheet against the applicant and the learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said charge sheet without application of mind. Learned Magistrate also framed charge under Section 135 of Electricity Act without considering the fact that no offence is made out against the applicant. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application by contending that as per FIR, the applicant was caught red handed while he was unauthorizedly using the electricity by putting a black cable in the high tension lines, which was taken into possession on the spot by the team of Electricity Department. Hence the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicant. The impugned order shows that the Court below has framed the charges against the applicant on the basis of prima facie evidence available on record. Hence the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicant. The impugned order shows that the Court below has framed the charges against the applicant on the basis of prima facie evidence available on record. The law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that at the stage of framing a charge even a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record, the application appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed. The application is accordingly dismissed.