- (1.) This application is directed against the order dated 1.11.2010 whereby and whereunder the then learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella took cognizance of the offences under Sections 135 and 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 in Chandil P.S. case no.61 of 2010 (G.R.No.462 of 2010). It is the case of the prosecution that when inspection was made on 10.6.2010 in a factory known as M/s. Gayatri Sales, Asanbani, having low tension industrial service connection with connected load of 1.4 H.P, inspecting team did find seals of the meter box, CT box and meter body tampered. One time lock fitted in CT box was also found tampered. On such finding, it was alleged that consumer intentionally, unauthorizedly and dishonestly operated the seals and locking arrangement with mala fide intention to suppress the actual recording of the metering system. On such allegation, the case was registered as Chandil P.S. case no.61 of 2010 under Sections 135 and 126 of the Indian Electricity Act. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences as alleged was taken by the court, vide its order dated 1.11.2010 which is under challenge.
(2.) Mr.Mittal, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for mere tampering with the seals of the meter, one cannot be held liable for the offence of the electricity theft as under the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003, one can be prosecuted for the offence of electricity theft when it is found that there is dishonest abstraction of electrical energy by artificial means or by means not authorized by the Board. In the instant case, it has never been the case of the prosecution that the consumer was found abstracting electrical energy by artificial/illegal means and hence, it can never be presumed that therewas dishonest abstraction simply for the reason that seals were found tampered with. This was subsequently clarified through Regulation framed by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of power conferred by clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 181 read with Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 known as 'Electricity Supply Code' which clearly postulates that breakage of seal does not amount to theft unless corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer.
(3.) Here, in the instant case, the prosecution has never come forward with the case that on account of tampering with seals, consumption of the electrical energy was found to be less than what was used to be consumed earlier. In such situation, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly unwarranted and hence, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside. In this regard learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Kamaljeet Singh vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 2010 3 PLJR 514.;