M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) BY this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Patratu PS Case No.173 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2575 of 2003 lodged by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Bhurkunda for an offence under Sections 379, 120(b) I.P.C. and Sections 39, 44, 135, 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 .
(2.) IT appears that the a surprise inspection was conducted in the petitioners' premises in pursuance of a confidential information received by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board about large scale power theft alleged to have been committed by the petitioners' unit. On receipt of the information, the matter was referred to the D.I.G. of Police (Vigilance & Security), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, who after examining the matter, instructed that a raid be conducted in the petitioners' premises. From the F.I.R. it appears that a raiding party under the supervision of Deputy Inspector General of Police, comprising of two officers of the Chairman Cell of J.S.E.B., two officers of A.P.T. Cell, a Magistrate, Assistant Electrical Engineer and other officers conducted the inspection and the assistance was also taken from the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh who arranged the police force. On inspection, the inspecting team found that the seal bits of the secondary terminal box cover was tampered with and C.T. terminal shunted by flexible wire. Various other irregularities were also found. Accordingly, the First Information Report was lodged. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly contended that F.I.R. could not have been lodged under Sections 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , inasmuch the Court is not empowered to take cognizance under any offence against the petitioners under this section except upon a complaint in writing made by the Appropriate Government or by the Appropriate Commission or any officer authorized by them. According to the learned counsel, police cannot lodge a First Information Report. Mr. Mittal further submitted that the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is mala fide, inasmuch as before the raid was conducted, one Dinesh Prasad Singh, a person attached to the Chairman Cell, came to the petitioners' factory and made a demand of Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioners refused to pay any amount which resulted in a raid in the petitioners' factory premises.
(3.) SO far the question of authority of the police officers to lodge F.I.R. is concerned, it was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Dayal Steels Ltd. V/s. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [AIR 2008 Jharkhand 105], wherein the Bench observed: "17. From a conjunctive reading of the above noted provisions of law, it would be manifest that a complaint may be lodged with the police by an authorized officer of the licensee or a generating company and that cognizance of the offences can be taken by the Court upon a complaint in writing made either by any officer authorized by the Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or by a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be. The Court can also take cognizance of the offences punishable under the Act upon a report of the police filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Act lays down for constitution of Special Courts by the State Government for the trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act. However, Rule 11 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 provides the jurisdiction of the Courts other than the Special Courts and lays down that jurisdiction of such Courts shall not be barred till such time the Special Court is constituted under sub -section (1) of Section 153o f the Act. 18. Since the Act and Rules thereunder provide for the power of Courts to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the Act upon a written complaint made by the licensee or any representative of the licensee and also upon police report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, it cannot be said therefore that the FIR lodged by the respondent No.7 in his capacity of being a representative of the licensee namely the Corporation, is without authority. Information relating to a cognizable offence can certainly be lodged with the police in order to set the law into motion. As to whether the respondent No.7 being the authorized representative of the corporation is an 3 Cr. M.P. 10/5/2014 Page 230 Birendra Kumar Singh Versus State Of Jharkhand No.1327of 2006 officer of the rank higher than the rank of such officer authorized by the Appropriate Commission, it would again be a matter of evidence and proof which may be considered by the Appropriate Court at the time of taking cognizance of the offences. The investigation into the allegation made in the FIR does not call for interference at this stage." ;