ORDER : J. C. DOSHI, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “(a) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the FIR-II No.294 of 2015 with GUVNL Police Station and charge sheet No.35 of 2015 dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure F Colly) filed against the present petitioner in the respondent no.2 police station. (b) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition the further proceedings against the petitioner in relation to FIR-II No.294 of 2015 with GUVNL Police Station and charge sheet No.35 of 2015 dated 26.03.2015 may kindly be stayed. (c) Any other and further relief in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.” 2. Facts of the case are as under :- 2.1. The petitioner took two vacant plots on leave and license agreement by one land lady viz. Nazeemabibi. The plots were having electricity meter bearing consumer No.03677/01425/5 which was used by the petitioner for running machineries . The meter was not working properly and became faulty and when such fact came to the notice of landlady she intimated to the electricity company by application dated 18.11.2014. The electricity company did not bother to check the meter. On 20.01.2015, incident occurred with regard to meter and meter was burnt, landlady’s son intimated the said fact to electricity company and on the same day electricity company person attended the premises where they found that MMB of the meter was burnt and glass was broken and it was alleged that petitioner has bypassed the meter and thus committed theft of electricity. On 21.01.2015, Meter was removed by checking sheet dated 21.05.2015, supply was disconnected and supplementary bill of Rs.25,25,380/- . Thereafter, on 06.02.2015, FIR was registered before GUVNL Police Station against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Qureshi for the petitioner having referred to judgment of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Revabhai Patel v/s. State of Gujarat [2015 LawSuit (Guj) 1330]; Criminal Misc. Thereafter, on 06.02.2015, FIR was registered before GUVNL Police Station against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Qureshi for the petitioner having referred to judgment of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Revabhai Patel v/s. State of Gujarat [2015 LawSuit (Guj) 1330]; Criminal Misc. Application No.4465 of 2010 between Rajeshkumar Khimjibhai Jakasania v/s. State of Gujarat as well as in the case of State of Gujarat v/s. Rayijaben Iqbalbhai [Criminal Revision Application No.977 of 2018] would submit that in the present case, petitioner’s electricity connection was disconnected on 21.01.2015 by the officers of DGVC Ltd. in drive to find out power theft. According to FIR, on the same day, officers found that the petitioner who is consumer of DGVCL bypassed meter, used electricity illegally and as such committed power theft. It is further submitted that FIR for such incident was filed on 06.02.2015 and as such it is in teeth of section 135 of the Electricity Act which mandates that FIR has to be filed within 24 hours on disconnection. It is submitted that according to DGVCL during checking if theft is found it is their duty to disconnect electricity supply on the spot and yet within 24 hours thereof, FIR was not filed. It is further submitted that since mandatory provisions are breached, continuance of FIR against petitioner is abuse of process. He therefore, submits to allow the petition and quash FIR. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar for respondent no.3 – DGVCL as against aforesaid submissions would submit that meter recording electricity consumption installed on the premises of the petitioner was burnt, thus electricity which was consumed by the petitioner was not recorded in electricity meter. He would submit that the petitioner obtained electricity through by passing electricity meter putting hook on the main supply. Therefore, there is no question of disconnection arise on the intercepting power theft. Therefore, he submits that proviso to section 135 of the Electricity Act would not attract in the present case. 4.1. Interpreting proviso to section 135 of the Electricity Act, learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar would submit that it is not mandatory that FIR should be filed within 24 hours of disconnection of electricity supply. It is submitted that it is not intention of legislature that FIR should be filed within 24 hours of disconnection. 4.1. Interpreting proviso to section 135 of the Electricity Act, learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar would submit that it is not mandatory that FIR should be filed within 24 hours of disconnection of electricity supply. It is submitted that it is not intention of legislature that FIR should be filed within 24 hours of disconnection. It is submitted that phrase ‘24 hours’ in proviso to section 135 is not putting any limitation in filing FIR, if intention of legislation is to put limitation in filing FIR, then such word would have been followed by the word that no FIR shall be filed subsequent thereto or no FIR shall be filed beyond 24 hours of detection of electricity theft and disconnection thereof. 4.2. Having referred to facts of present case, learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submitted that offence under section 135(1)(B) of Electricity Act is registered in the present case recording huge power theft assessed at Rs.25,25,380/- and therefore, the person who has committed power theft and caused huge monetary loss to exchequer should not be given leverage by quashing FIR against him. 4.3. Making above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the petition. 5. Learned APP in aforesaid facts submitted to pass necessary orders. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, I may refer section 135 of the Electricity Act as under :- “135. 4.3. Making above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the petition. 5. Learned APP in aforesaid facts submitted to pass necessary orders. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, I may refer section 135 of the Electricity Act as under :- “135. Theft of Electricity.– (1)Whoever, dishonestly,– (a)taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or (b)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 (c)damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or (d)uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e)uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use– (i)does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity; (ii)exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity: Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station: Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A)Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity: Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity: Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection: Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment. (2)Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorised in this behalf by the State Government may– (a)enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity has been or is being, used unauthorisedly; (b)search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is being, used for unauthorised use of electricity; (c)examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence. (3)The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list: Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises. (4)The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act. 7. Offence under section 135(1)(a) can be said to be made out if person dishonestly, taps, makes or causes to made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of electricity supply; offence under section 135(1)(b) would appear if a person 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 stolen of electricity or wasted thereof; offence under section 135(1)(c) would come when electric meter is damages or destroys, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; offence under section 135(1)(d) would appear if person uses electricity through a tampered meter; offence under section 135(1)(e) would appear if electricity is used for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity is permitted. 8. First proviso to section 135 records load abstracted, consumed or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use. Second proviso within first proviso under section 135 is in regard to second and subsequent conviction of a person for the load abstracted etc. Further section 135 (1A) mandates that without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, the licensee or supplier, may upon detection of such theft of electricity, disconnect the supply of electricity immediately. Proviso to section (1A) of section 135 provides rank of the officer to disconnect supply of electricity. Further proviso thereof makes it lodging of complaint in writing relating to commission of offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hours from the time of such disconnect. It starts with word ‘shall’ and therefore, in absence of contrary intention of legislation it could be treated as mandatory provision. Further proviso permits supplier or licensee to restore electricity connection without resorting to file complaint if electricity charges assessed in accordance with the Act has been deposited within forty eight hours thereof. 9. It starts with word ‘shall’ and therefore, in absence of contrary intention of legislation it could be treated as mandatory provision. Further proviso permits supplier or licensee to restore electricity connection without resorting to file complaint if electricity charges assessed in accordance with the Act has been deposited within forty eight hours thereof. 9. In view of aforesaid scheme of law, if we come back to FIR on record, it appears that offence under section 135(1)(b) of Electricity Act is registered meaning thereby according to officer of Electricity Company meter through which electric line was passing has been tampered. It is not case of the complainant that electricity meter, apparatus, equipment or wire are damaged or destroyed. No offence under section 135(1)(c) of the Electricity Act has been registered against the petitioner. Scheme of the Act empowers officer of Electricity company under section 135 of the Act to disconnect as soon as theft is detected. Noticeably on 21.01.2015, search operation was carried out by DGVSL to detect power theft and during search operation of premises of the petitioner, it was found that electric meter was burnt. However, it is treated as tempering of meter as FIR is filed under section 135(1)(b) of the Act. Though it is not specifically stated in the FIR that disconnection took place immediately but according to officer of DGVCL, loop connection was taken place and it was removed. FIR was registered with UGNVL Police Station on 06.02.2015 almost after 15 days of detection of power theft and disconnection made thereof. It fails to meet mandatory criteria of section 135 of Act to lodged FIR. Though learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar appearing for DGVCL attempted to submit that it is not mandatory to report FIR within 24 hours of detection of theft and disconnection, this Court is not impressed by such submission, more particularly perusing judgment of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Patel (supra) as well as in the case of Rajeshkumar Jakasania (supra), apt to say that reasons stated in these judgments governs the issue. 10. It was argued by learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar that proviso to section 135 of the Act does not limit to file FIR within 24 hours. In other words, it is argued that section 135 does not make it mandatory that FIR should be filed within 24 hours of detection of power theft. 10. It was argued by learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar that proviso to section 135 of the Act does not limit to file FIR within 24 hours. In other words, it is argued that section 135 does not make it mandatory that FIR should be filed within 24 hours of detection of power theft. According to him, it was not intention of legislature, otherwise in the provision it would have been legislated that FIR beyond 24 hours is not permissible. Again, I am not impressed by this submission. What is not stated in the legislation cannot be read to support submissions. It is settled principle of law that law has to be read as it is. 11. As stated herein above, proviso under section 135(1A) starts with word “shall” and that reflects intention of legislature. It is therefore, mandatory to file FIR within 24 hours from such time of disconnection. Since FIR is filed beyond limitation, it is abuse of process of law. Statutory bar in filing FIR applies to the facts of the case and therefore, FIR deserves to be quashed. 12. Apposite to note that civil liability assessed against the petitioner can be maintained as those proceedings are completely independent and not affected by this decision. 13. In view of above, the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. Impugned FIR being No.294 of 2015 registered with GUVNL Police Station along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. 14. Aforesaid order would not come in the way of DGVCL to recover the amount of supplementary bill in separate proceedings generated and calculated for incident of detecting power theft. 15. In view of above, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2024 does not survive and accordingly, stands disposed of.