RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application is seeking a declaration that if the meter removed from the site of the raid has not been sent following the laid down procedure, the punitive bills, the F.I.R. - Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 51/2010 dated 09.08.2010 and the order taking cognizance under Section 135/138 of the Bihar Electricity Act are fit to be quashed. A further prayer has been made that any payment made against a punitive electric bill (Annexure ‘4’) if collected against any wrong punitive action/actions/order (Annexure No. ‘3’) should be set-aside and the amount so paid to the respondent be refunded to the petitioner with interest.

Brief Facts

3. Petitioner is the director of a firm known as M/s Electronic Net @ ICT. It is a partnership firm. The firm had it’s office at Rukanpura, Patna where it was having a training room. On 09.08.2010, a team consisting of Electrical Engineers and few other officials of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) conducted a raid in the business premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was not present at Patna, thus, the team was assisted by some officials and the students who did not have the full knowledge of the set-up of the office of the petitioner. Subsequent to the raid so conducted, the respondent served an inspection-cum-seizure report to the petitioner under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2003’).

4. It is stated that on the next date, the respondent issued a letter to the petitioner from which the petitioner came to know that the team had found the petitioner being involved in theft of electricity for the benefit of his firm by tampering the electric meter installed in the business premises. The letter also informed that the respondent had lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner at P.S. – Rukanpura, Patna giving rise to Case No. 51/2010 dated 09.08.2010 under Section 135/138 of the Act of 2003. The respondent claimed that they had to incur an approximate loss of Rs. 8 Lakhs. According to the F.I.R., the electric wire supplying electricity to the firm of the petitioner was disconnected from the supply pole and the meter was removed after the same being wrapped under a red piece of cloth.

5. The petitioner was served with a provisional bill amounting to Rs. 10,24,639/-. It was a bill raised under Section 126 of the Act of 2003. The petitioner admits that he was called upon to submit his objection, if any, before the respondent by 3:00 P.M. on 07.09.2010, failing which the respondent would treat the provisional bill as if the same was given as punitive bill to the petitioner. It is stated that without waiting for the representation of the petitioner, respondent sent another report dated 10.08.2010 wherein a provisional cum punitive assessment order was passed.

6. It is stated that having been rejected and frustrated by the approach of the respondents, the petitioner deposited the entire amount into the account of the respondent and submitted a forwarding letter to the respondent explaining the deposit made against the punitive bill. A copy of this letter has been brought on record as Annexure ‘4’ series. The petitioner has made certain submissions as regards the calculation of the punitive bill.

Grounds for quashing

7. The petitioner has sought quashing of the First Information Report on the ground inter alia that no cut wires were seized from the pilfering point through which a bypass of electricity could be made. No independent witness was present and no videography was done while preparing the seizure during the raid. No charge-sheet had been submitted by the P.S. concerned till date and as such no cognizance had been taken by the learned court. Since the punishment prescribed under the Act is only for a period of three years imprisonment, the cognizance was also supposed to be taken within three years from the da