- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and the counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision for setting aside the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Judicial Magistrte, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with G.R. No.2037 of 2008 (arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.222 of 2008), whereby and whereunder the said learned court has rejected the petitioners application for discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution story based on a written report of the informant, in brief is that, on inspection of the premises of M/s Rishi Cement Company, Consumer No.K.G. 6383, Bharechnagar (Sandi) Ramgarh, the Seal of Secondary Terminal Cover of the C.T.P.T. Meter Unit was found duplicate. It has been further alleged that the unauthorized used of electricity was being done after removing the insulation of P.V.C. wire and as such, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board had suffered a loss of Rs.41,82,384/ - approximately and on the basis of the aforesaid written report, the case has been registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the petitioner i.e. Mandu (Kuju) P.S.Case No.222 of 2008. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case at the instance of the opposite party No.2 and the Board authority. It is further contended that the inspection report dated 9.6.2008, which has been prepared by the inspecting team on the date of inspection, has been prepared behind the back of the petitioner, even without the presence of any independent witnesses or any representative of the petitioner, which is very clear from the inspection report as there is no signature either of the petitioner or his representative or any of the independent witnesses. Therefore, the said report is not of evidentiary value in the eye of law. He further submitted that according to Section of 135 of the Electricity Act, which clearly says that the concerned officer who made inspection, must have been authorized by the State Government, but no paper has been filed that the informant has been authorized by the State Government to make inspection under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the F.I.R. with its Seizure List is not at all sustainable in the eye of law.
(3.) THE counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submitted that the provision under Chapter -14 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2005, where the different procedure prescribed, has not been followed by the Opposite Parties. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner has been ceased to be the Director of the Company in question since 10.2.2006. Therefore, according to Section 149 of the Electricity Act, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the conduct or the business of the company. It is also contended that the company in question had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3048 of 2008, and this Court vide its order dated 3.7.2008, directed the Board to restore the electric connection on the condition that if the company deposits a sum of Rs.10 Lacs, the line will be restored within 48 Hrs and such deposit will be subject to final assessment.;