RAJUL BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.12.2017, 15.2.2012 and 27.2.2012 as well as proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2012, pending in the court of IV Additional District Judge, Agra arising out of judgement and order dated 4.6.2010 acquitting the applicant from the Case Crime No. 467 of 1998 Sections 39, 40 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra.
(3.) The allegations against the applicant is that he is the proprietor of an industry in which on 11.9.1998 a raid was conducted by the officials of power corporation and several irregularities regarding tampering of metres and pilferage of electricity were noted. The meters which were found tampered were sealed by the authorities of electricity department. An F.I.R. against the applicant was registered under Sections 39, 40 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and the applicant was put to trial. He was, however, acquitted of the charges levelled against him by judgement and order dated 4.6.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Agra. The District Magistrate granted sanction to file criminal appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 4.6.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 508 of 2001. It transpires from record that on account of internal procedure for filing an appeal between the government departments, the appeal 2 was filed with delay of 170 days by the opposite party No. 2 along with delay condonation application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act through District Government Counsel (Criminal). The said application was marked as Criminal Misc. Application No. 18 of 2011. It further appears from the record that several dates were fixed for disposal of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act which ultimately was dismissed for the non-appearance/prosecution by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Agra on 6.7.2011. It is relevant to state that said application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was not decided on merits but simply on account of non-prosecution. Thereafter a second criminal appeal was filed against the judgement of acquittal along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 463 of 2011 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellate court allowed the said application after hearing appellant-State of U.P. through opposite party No. 2 and the counsel for the applicant vide order dated 15.2.2012. In the said order, the learned judge has detailed the reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2012. The said appeal remained pending since 2012 and no objection with regard to the maintainability of the said appeal was raised by the applicant. However, on 1.12.2017 an application was moved by the applicant regarding non-maintainability of the said appeal on the ground that prior to the institution of the appeal no sanction was accorded by the District Magistrate, Agra. An objection in the said application was also taken that the application for delay condonation was dismissed on 6.7.2011 and the said fact of dismissal of the earlier delay condonation application was concealed in the subsequent application which was allowed by order dated 15.2.2012. Therefore, file of Criminal Misc. Application No. 18 of 2011 be summoned. Another objection was also raised as ground No. 4 in the said application that Sri Hari Dutt Sharma, Advocate appearing for the department has not been legally authorized by any official of the Corporation especially, Sri G.K. Saraswat was never posted as Executive Engineer under whose signature on Vakalanama, he is appearing to argue the case on behalf of the Corporation.;