CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. VISHAL AGRWAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THESE revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the subject-matter of the dispute involved in these petition is identical and common questions of law are involved for adjudication these petitions.
(2.)IN Criminal revision No. 49/07 the report was lodged by Chhattisgarh Electricity Board (for brevity 'the Board') against the non-applicant No. 2 on 31. 3. 2006 regarding theft of electricity on 23. 2. 2006 and accordingly, Crime No. 227/06 for the offence punishable under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act of 2003') was registered and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, bilaapur. The Special Judge by the impugned order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in E. Cr. Case No. 4/06 allowed the application of the Non-applicants for the present and discharged the non-applicants with liberty to the Board that it can take proper action in accordance with' law.
(3.)IN criminal revision No. 573/06 on the report of Junior Engineer, C. S. E. B. offence was registered against the non-applicant no. 1 Rajendra Prasad Agrawal for commission of electricity theft on 28. 4. 2006 in Police Station Champa. Non-applicant No. 1 moved an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, bilaspur. After hearing counsel for the respective parties learned A. S. J. observed vide impugned order dated 6. 6. 2006 passed in b. A. No. 998/06 that for the offence under section 135 of the Act of 2003 cognizance of the offence can be taken by any Court only on the complaint under Section 151 of the act and any other procedure would be illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, action taken by the police cannot be termed to be in accordance with law and the same is vitiated. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Champa was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In view of the above observations of the Court, the counsel appearing for non-applicant No. l did not press his application and the same was accordingly, rejected.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.