JUDGMENT : 1. These three petitions have been preferred under Section 561–A Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceeding under Section 95 of the J&K Electricity Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu. The petitioners have also assailed the validity of the order dated 20.09.2016 whereby petitioners have been asked to produce some relevant record in a proceeding under Section 95 of the Act pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. It is stated in the petitions that the petitioners, who are running the Education College which were set up way back in 2005, 2009 and in August 2016 and at the time of establishing the colleges, the petitioners obtained electricity connection by fulfilling all the requisite formalities thus the petitioners were registered as electric consumers with its service connection Nos. 0033101, 033102 & 031881 under the Electricity Act and the loads were sanctioned by the respondent after taking into consideration the total consumption of the electricity and installation of devices and gadgets. With the passage of time and requirement in the colleges/Centre University, some additional devices were affixed, which made the petitioners to move an applications to the respondent for inspection of the premises so as to enhance the electricity load i.e., the total consumption of electricity by the petitioners. Despite the fact that the applications were moved by the petitioners notifying the respondent to enhance the electric load but no inspections were made however, the respondent visited the spot and noted the installation of devices and filed the complaint u/s 95 of the J&K Electricity Act, 2010 before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity) Act, 2010 Jammu complaining that there is excess of 8.3kw, 5.41 kw & 13.6 kw in the colleges/Hostel of the petitioners alleging to be the pilferage of electricity. It is further contended that the Magistrate on the basis of the complaints took the cognizance without taking into consideration that it is not the case of respondent that there is theft of electricity but alleged that there is a excessive load against the sanctioned load thus the Court without recording the statement of complainant took the cognizance without complying the mandate of Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the criminal complaints/challan and the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which is just misuse of process of law, therefore, the petitioners challenge the same on the following grounds: (i) That the present criminal complaint is liable to be quashed on the ground that it is completely abuse of process of law. The Court has not complied with the mandate of Section 204 of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate without complying the pre-requisite for issuing the process has simply observed that the Court is of opinion that the prima facie case for the commission of offence under the provision of J&K Electricity Act, has established. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has laid down the guidelines the process for summoning the accused must not be issued in a mechanical manner or as a matter of course. The application of mind by Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuing process to the accused is essential and there must be sufficient indication in the order that the magistrate is satisfied on the facts alleged in the complaint, constitute an offence and the facts when considered along with the statements recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. In absence of any such indication in the order the aggrieved party has the right to invoke the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court in order to prevent abuse of power of criminal Court. To call a person to appear before criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one’s dignity, self respect and image in society the process u/s 204 Cr.P.C must not be made weapon of harassment. In the present case there is no indication in the order of magistrate regarding application of mind by him in taking cognizance and issuing process to the petitioner. Therefore, the order is bad. The Court without recording the statement of the inspector appears to have taken the cognizance on spot which shows that the magistrate was the party to the inspection team of the electrical department therefore, the order is bad and is liable to quashed. (ii) The order impugned is otherwise bad in the eyes of law as it does not constitute an offence within meaning of Section 95 of Electricity Act, from the perusal of the section transpire what constitute theft of electricity. (ii) The order impugned is otherwise bad in the eyes of law as it does not constitute an offence within meaning of Section 95 of Electricity Act, from the perusal of the section transpire what constitute theft of electricity. (iii) That the impugned complaint is otherwise bad in the eyes of law there is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to make use of the electricity. It was only the excessive load. In order to constitute an offence of dishonest intention, the intention has to be gathered from the very inception. Therefore, complaint is liable to be quashed. (iv) That the impugned complaint is otherwise liable to be quashed on the ground that it does not constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 95 of the Electricity Act 2010. It is admitted case of the respondent that the petitioner is a registered and authorized consumer of sanctioned load of electricity being used for commercial purpose however at the time of inspection some variations in the actual consumption of the electricity and the sanctioned load has been deducted in the installation of electronic gadgets on the basis of which the excessive load has been assessed. “Deduction of excessive load during the assessment does not fall within definition of Section 95 of the Act for which the prosecution can be launched. 4. I have heard counsels for the parties and gone through the order impugned dated 20.9.2016. The contents of all three orders impugned are same except title. Impugned order reads as under:- “Electricity Inspector has presented this complaint on 20.09.2016 in presence of the accused namely, Arun Kumar. Diarise it. I have perused the complaint and also heard the electrical inspector at length in presence accused. After giving my thoughtful consideration over the matter, I am of the opinion that prima facie a cased for the commission of offence under the provisions of J&K Electricity Act has been established. On being asked accused does not plead guilty rather he seeks some time to produce the relevant record. Time granted. Accused is directed to appear before the court on 20-10-2016.” 5. Bare perusal of order, it is evident that Special Magistrate was on tour when these complaints were presented before him by complainant. On being asked accused does not plead guilty rather he seeks some time to produce the relevant record. Time granted. Accused is directed to appear before the court on 20-10-2016.” 5. Bare perusal of order, it is evident that Special Magistrate was on tour when these complaints were presented before him by complainant. The allegations in complaints are as under: In complaint titled State through Electrical Inspector v .Galaxy Para Medical College, the allegation is that there was extra load of electricity than sanctioned. In complaint titled State through Electrical Inspector v. Vandhana Sharm Hotel Galaxy college, the allegation was that Commercial activities were found running on domestic billing as per bill produced of November 2015. Two additional service lines were found without meter of feeding power in the said premises. In complaint State through Electrical Inspector V. Galaxy College of education, the allegation is that number of service lines have been found feeding institution without any energy meter. 6. It is worthwhile to mention here that all these three institutions are being run by Arun Kumar and his wife Vandana Sharma. The main argument of counsel for petitioners is that all the allegations fall under section 86 of Act and not under section 95 of Act, which deals with theft. Section 86 of Act reads as under :- “if on the inspection of any place or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally asses to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot ascertained, such period shall be limited a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.” 7. Section 95 of Act reads as under :- “95. Section 95 of Act reads as under :- “95. Theft of electricity whoever, dishonestly Tapes, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or underwater lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplied, as the case may be: or Tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted or Damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or cause or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or Uses electricity through a tampered meter or Uses electricity for the purposes other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized.” 8. Bare perusal of these sections it is evident both are distinct and different provisions which operate in different fields and have no common premise; section 86 of Act constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant consideration for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under section 95 of Act which relates to 'offences and penalties' and title of the Section is 'theft of electricity'. The Section opens with the words 'whoever, dishonestly' does any or all of the acts specified under clauses mentioned in section of Act. Provisions of section 86 of Act would be applicable to the cases where there is no theft of electricity but the electricity is being consumed in violation of the terms and conditions of supply leading to malpractices which may squarely fall within the expression 'unauthorized use of electricity'. This assessment/proceedings would commence with the inspection of the premises by an assessing officer and recording of a finding that such consumer is indulging in an 'authorized use of electricity'. Then the assessing officer shall provisionally assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such consumer, as well as pass a provisional assessment. 9. As already held section 95 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of Criminal Jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. 9. As already held section 95 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of Criminal Jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. Thus, it would be clear that the expression 'unauthorized use of electricity' under section 86 of Act deals with cases of unauthorized use, even in absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under section 95 of Act. 10. Whereas the allegations levelled against the petitioners in challan are that commercial actively was being run on domestic meter, so this amount to theft because tariff of electricity for commercial activity are much higher than that of domestic; second allegation is that two lines were found taped without meter. It also amount to theft. Further numbers of service lines have been found feeding institution without any energy meter, this also amount to theft. From these allegations it is clear that petitioners were dishonestly committing the act of theft of electricity, which does not fall under the provisions of section 86 of Act. 11. All these allegations clearly comes under the purview of section 95 of Act , because as per this is penal section whoever dishonestly Tapes, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or loop connection or Uses electricity for the purposes other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, is liable for theft of electricity. 12. Further from the perusal of order impugned, I find that it is not a final order and only petitioners have been allowed to produce documents, that too on the request of petitioners. The argument of counsel that provision of section 204 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed is devoid of merit because it is not a complaint made by party; but it is Magistrate who took cognizance on spot on inspection. The theft of electricity may be due to fraud (meter tampering), stealing (illegal connections), taping, using the electricity other than for the purpose taken. Electricity theft due to these reason have great impact on economy of State. Electricity theft can be reduced by applying strict penal provisions. 13. The theft of electricity may be due to fraud (meter tampering), stealing (illegal connections), taping, using the electricity other than for the purpose taken. Electricity theft due to these reason have great impact on economy of State. Electricity theft can be reduced by applying strict penal provisions. 13. Hence in view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order of Court below. All the petitions are dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated. All the connected petitions are also dismissed.