- (1.) Respondents, in discharge of their duties as SDO, Electricity Board and Junior Engineers, Electricity Board, were checking withdrawal of extra power by the consumers. Their team seized an extra motor kept by the complainant. Complainant had preferred a complaint for prosecuting them under Section 379/ 380/ 421/ 323/ 500 IPC.
(2.) In the complaint, respondents were summoned as accused. They preferred a revision in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Revisions preferred by the respondents were accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. It will be apposite here to reproduce the reasoning given by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur: "6. From the perusal of the records, no offence whatsoever is made out warranting the prosecution of any of the revisionists. As per his own allegations, the complainant admits that he had kept one extra motor there. The revisionists are the responsible employees being Engineers of The State Electricity Board and are duty bound to check the consumers in order to avoid the theft of electricity. The complainant was consumer for one connection and could only run one motor. Keeping of extra motor there would show that he had some motive to commit theft of energy. If the revisionists took away the electric motor in the discharge of their official duties, it does not constitute any offence either under S.379 of 380 of the Indian Penal Code. No offence under S.427 IPC is made out as no mischief was committed there by causing any damage to the crop, because the electric connected and valid motor were very well in operation. As regards the offences under S.323 IPC, there is no evidence on the file. Mohinder Singh was not examined medico legally by any Doctor. It is pertinent to note that Mohinder Singh is brother of complainant. The allegations of the complainant are that the accused threatened to get the case registration for theft of energy. It appears, that as a counter blast the complaint preferred this complaint. If there was any over act on the part of the accused-revisionists the complainant along with Mukhtiar Singh, would have met the higher authorities on 3.7.91 instead of the accused again, and depositing Rs.1500/- All this show that there is no substance in the complaint and prima facie no case is made out against the accusedrevisionists. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted and the complaint stands dismissed. File be consigned."
(3.) The reasoning given by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur suffers from no infirmity as he had formulated reasonable opinion. It is part of duty of raiding party to seize the electric motor used unlawfully to withdraw electric power and same in no manner will constitute offence of theft of electric motor and other offences complained.;