The main legal point established is the court's emphasis on the power of the court to take cognizance of an offence even after the expiry of the period of limitation under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.

The present application arises out of Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 302 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act against the petitioner herein.

2. The short facts of the case are that the Junior Electrical Engineer, Line Bazar, Purnea, on the basis of secret information received by him, conducted a raid in the premises of the petitioner herein on 18.06.2014 at about 5:45 in the morning along with other officials of the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred as ‘NBPDCL’) and armed forces whereupon it was found that in the premises of the consumer three phase electricity line had been brought from L.T. pole whereas single phase meter was installed in the premises which was defective and had been bye passed and theft of electricity was being committed. It has further been stated that the petitioner was committing theft of electricity amounting to 6 K.W. Thereafter, the P.V.C. wire, being used to commit the crime, and the meter were seized. It was further stated that on account of the said occurrence, NBPDCL has suffered a financial loss of Rs. 1,17,381.88 and apart from this the outstanding dues against the consumer was a sum of Rs. 35,471/-, hence a total loss of Rs. 1,52,852.88 had been caused. On the basis of the said written complaint of the Junior Electrical Engineer dated 18.06.2014, Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 302 of 2014 was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act against the petitioner herein.

3. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report of Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 302 of 2014.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly the aforesaid FIR is fit to be quashed since the same has been filed by an official of the NBPDCL who had got no power to lodge the aforesaid case and was not authorized by the appropriate commission for filing the complaint or lodging the First Information Report. Secondly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that even otherwise as per the mandate of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is barred from taking cognizance since the period of limitation has expired.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the first issue regarding the Junior Electrical Engineer being not competent to file the complaint/FIR does not arise in the present case and a non-existent ground has been raised by the petitioner inasmuch as according to the Notification dated 31.05.2013 issued by the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission, which has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2, the Junior Electrical Engineer posted in the Electricity Supply Sub-Division of NBPDCL and South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, have been authorized for the purposes of disconnecting the supply line of the electricity within their respective jurisdictions where theft of electricity is detected in the premises of Low Tension consumers for maximum connected load up to 7 K.W. as well as for lodging complaint in police stations. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the second argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding the Court being barred from taking cognizance on account of expiry of the period of limitation is premature inasmuch as neither charge sheet has been filed nor cognizance has been taken, hence the stage regarding the order taking cognizance being good or bad does not arise. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly permits the Court to take cognizance of any offence even after the expiry of the period of limitation.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied on a judgment reported in AIR 2014 Criminal Law Journal 586 (SC) (Mrs. Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular D