ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Taking into account the question involved at an earlier occasion there was direction for analogous hearing of Cr.W.J.C. No. 23/2006 as well as the present Cr.W.J.C. No. 269/2008 but as the learned counsel for the Vigilance conceded over application of ratio decided by the Division Bench of our own High Court reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 1064, hence Cr. Writ No. 23/06 was allowed in terms thereof (whole brief has been filed by way of supplementary affidavit).

2. As the learned counsel for the Vigilance submitted that the ratio decided by the aforesaid Division Bench is not applicable so far present writ is concerned. Hence, there has been full-fledged hearing of instant writ petition.

3. Petitioners, who happen to accused of Vigilance P.S. Case No.21/03 leading to registration of Special Case No.15/03 registered under Section 120B, 201, 379 IPC read with Section 7, 13(1) (C)(D) (i) (ii), 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 39, 44 of Indian Electricity Act has prayed for quashing of the same.

4. Prem Kumar Singh an Electrical Engineer who was one of the members of Vigilance filed a written report disclosing therein that there has been theft of electricity by Balmukund Concast

Click Here to Read the rest of this document