Satyavrat Verma, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (S.B.P.D.C.L.) and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, PESU, area Patna in G.R. No.466 of 2009 arising out of Kadamkuan P. S. Case No.50 of 2009 whereby the application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been rejected in a mechanical manner.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Company, at the out, submits that the learned Special Judge, PESU area Patna has been invested with powers of Sessions Judge, as such, the discharge application ought to have been filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and not under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not rebut the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the power Company, but submits that mere technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in order to appreciate the controversy in question, it is necessary to delineate the facts of the case in brief. The learned counsel submits that petitioner runs Sri Om Scan Centre and had entered into an agreement with the Power Company for electricity connection. Accordingly, the agreement was executed by letter dated 29.06.2000 for running the Scan Centre and the petitioner was allotted Consumer Account No.227310, thereafter, a commercial Meter No.804/31/3x10-60A with sanctioned load of 30 K.W.

6. The learned counsel next submits that an inspection of the premises were done on 10.02.2009 by an inspection team to verify the load and inspection of meter. During inspection, the meter expert calculated the load and found it to the extent of 26.268 K.W. out of sanctioned load of 30 K.W. and accordingly, a report dated 10.02.2009 was prepared alleging tampering of meter. Thereafter, the meter was removed and the line was disconnected and an F.I.R. being Kadamkuan P. S. Case No.50 of 2009 came to be instituted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

7. The learned counsel submits that the act of the inspecting team was accentuated with malafide, as would be evident from the submissions hereinafter. In the same breath, the learned counsel also submits that genuine customers are harassed and the authorities, who indulged in harassment goes Scot-free in garb of discharging official duty and then, the learned trial Court also acts mechanically while considering the application for discharge. Thus, submits that in the event, if the present application is allowed, the authorities, who indulged in an illegal act by instituting an F.I.R. against the petitioner by violating the provisions of the Bihar Supply Code, 2007, be also dealt sternly.

8. It is next submitted that an agreement between the petitioner and Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as the B.S.E.B./ Power Company) was entered on 29.06.2000 and accordingly, Consumer Account No.227310 was allotted to the petitioner and thereafter, a commercial meter No.804/31/3x10-60A was installed with sanctioned load of 30 K.W. for running a Scan Unit in the name and style of Sri Om Scan Centre.

9. It is further submitted that from the date of installation of the meter, the petitioner was paying the electricity bill without any complaints from any quarter.

10. It is next submitted that on 21.10.2008 (Annexure-1 to the quashing application) and Inspection Team (STF), Rajendra Nagar, inspected the premises of the petitioner for load verification and for inspecting the meter. The meter was checked and the team did not find any sign of bypassing of line nor there was any sign of tampering with the meter. However, the Inspecting Team reported that the meter appears to be giving slow reading thus be checked by M.R.T. to be replaced by