G.MALVIYA, J. - (1.) The petitioner M/s. Jhansi Concrete Products, Jhansi along with its partners has moved this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for quashing the investigation pursuant, to the first information report giving rise to Crime No.245 of 1988 under Ss.30/40/44 of the Electricity Act, P.S. Jhansi. As per allegations in the first information report, a flying squad of the Electricity Department on 22nd June, 1988, found the meter of the petitioners firm burnt and the electricity to the concern connected with the main line. As per allegations in the first information report the petitioners were guilty of theft of electricity making them liable to prosecution under Ss.39/40/44 of the Electricity Act.
(2.) Shri Dharam Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although a bare perusal of the first information report may disclose an offence, yet if the other attending circumstances are taken into consideration which according to him have been brought to the notice of this Court in the form of other annexures to the writ petition, then it would be evident that the petitioners are not guilty of having committed any offence at all. He referred to the letter by the Managing Partner of the petitioners firm dated 20th June, 1988 to S.D.O.II, E.D.S.D. Jhansi (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), which shows that the meter installed at the premises of the petitioners had got burnt and a request was made for direct connection to the factory till the replacement of the meter for which necessary charges as per rule were sought to be deposited. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is a photostat copy of the receipt issued by the U.P. Electricity Board showing that the petitioners on 20th June, 1988 made a deposit of a sum of Rs. 450/- on account of burnt meter. Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a letter dated 11-7-1988 from the S.D.O., Electricity Distribution Sub Division II, Jhansi to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jhansi, stating that on the deposit being made of Rs. 450/- on 20th June, 1988, the electricity connection was made directly to M/s. Jhansi Concrete Products, Jhansi, by the Junior Engineer on the request of the Executive Engineer. Although there seems to be no such request forthcoming from the side of the Executive Engineer, learned counsel still relied on a letter of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jhansi, dated 17th Sept. 1988, addressed to the Inspector of the Flying Squad, Kanpur Zone mentioning the fact that the direct supply of electricity to the petitioners firm had been made by the Junior Engineer on 20th June, 1988 after getting the deposit of Rs. 450/-, as it was permissible to provide direct supply up to a period of 15 days. The letter shows that the Executive Engineer wanted the flying squad to make inspection after informing the authorities of the Electricity Department in the relevant zone so that such action which may bring the Department in bad repute in the eye of public may not be repeated time and again.
(3.) Whether the flying squad should inform the Department people or not is a matter to be decided by the flying squad itself, as the object of the flying squad is to check such illegal connections which may have been made in connivance with the Department. However, if a valid deposit as contemplated under the Rules was made and if there was sanction for direct connection according to Rules as is claimed by the petitioner in this petition, it will be clear that the petitioner cannot be held to have committed any offence, as they were then not guilty of any theft of electricity who were consuming electricity in accordance with the Rules on payment of usual charges. However, this enquiry and investigation is not to be done by this Court. Investigation in this respect is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer after going through all these documents along with such other material as he may find relevant will be able to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were or were not guilty of having committed any offence. Once he finds the assertion of the petitioners to be correct as divulged in this petition, it will be his task to submit a final report in this case. If this Court was to intefere in the matter of investigation, the Investigating Officer will never be able to arrive at such a conclusion or to submit a final report. If the Investigating Officer finds the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the documents to be not genuine and finds a prima facie case against the petitioner, then he will be in a position to inform the concerned court that a case for trial of the petitioners has been made out on the basis of the charge and the evidence collected by him which he has to do in accordance with law.;