Back
1999 Supreme(Del) 639
High Court Of Delhi
D.D.CHADHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE (NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI) - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 360 of 1999
Decided On : 08/20/1999
G.M.KHAN, H.R.Khan, M.S.BUTALIA, V.S.RAVAT
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397(3) & 482 — Inherent powers — Challenge to pass order in revision — Glaring illegality and injustice — The court must exercise inherent powers to annul injustice and illegality.
Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 2(c), 39 & 44 — Theft of electricity — Charge framed against registered consumer of electricity without charge sheeting the person responsible for theft — Order framing charge set aside.
Held:
In the instant case, the only ground that weighed with the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in framing of the impugned charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner was the registered consumer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Although learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in the impugned order that on the day in question Mis. Ravi Sun Printers were found dishonestly abstracting the electrical energy yet he held that the petitioner, being a registered consumer wider Section 2(c), is liable for prosecution under Sections 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 IPC. It appears that both the courts below have lost sight of the fact that the statutory theft created by Section 39 of the Act is against a person who has been shown to have dishonestly abstracted, consumed or used the electrical energy. As noticed earlier, the joint inspection report, which is the foundation of the FIR, prima facie, shows that at the time of inspection the offending meters were in custody and control of M/s. Ravi Sun Printers and they were found dishonestly abstracting the electrical energy. Strangely enough, M/s. Ravi Sun Printers have not been charge-sheeted under Sections 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 IPC. However, the material collected by the prosecuting agency does not make out any case under Sections 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 IPC against the petitioner. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has misdirected himself in placing reliance of Section 2(c) of the Act for imposing criminal liability on the petitioner for the alleged offence. Surprisingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Has also supported the wholly erroneous view taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to observe, that the impugned order directing framing of a charge against the petitioner under Sections 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 IPC is an affront to law which could not be overlooked as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Thus in this case, the impugned order of framing of a charge under Sections 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 IPC against the petitioner clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court and for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is absolutely necessary to annul the manifest illegality which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 6. 1. 1995 passed by Shri K. S. Pal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and 14. 1. 1998 passed by Shri S. K. Tandon, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Crl. R. No. 25/96.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Hind Automobiles Corporation, which is the registered consumer of the electricity connection of K. No. 0093687648 at 38, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. On 1. 6. 1992 factory premises of the petitioner were inspected by the Enforcement Staff petitioner were inspected by the Enforcement Staff of the DESU, when it was discovered that three half seals of the meter i. e. , OL-12055, OL-12056 and OL-120587 of monogram IMD-84 were tampered with. On 1. 7. 1992, Asst. Engineer Mr. P. C. Bhardwaj lodged the FIR at the P. S. Okhla Industrial Area, Phase III, New Delhi. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of a charge/sheet under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act (for short "the Act") read with Section 379 IPC.
( 3 ) ON consideration of the report filed under Section 173 Cr. P. C. and documents filed in support thereof, learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed a charge under Sections 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a revision petition which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide orders dated 14. 1. 1998. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. According to the learned counsel, the present petition is a second revision petition against the impugned order of framing of charge against the petitioner, which is expressly barred by Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. and so this Court cannot act as second revisional court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Narain Heghde v. S. Bangarappa, (1995 2 All. CRI. LR 211) in support of the said contention.
( 5 ) IT is pertinent to mention that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47, it was held: "the High Court possessed and possesses the inherent powers to the exercised ex debito justitiac to do the real and the substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist".
( 6 ) IN a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of UP and others (JT 1999 (4) SC 634), it was held that inherent powers are in the nature of extra ordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned is Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. In Raj Kapoor v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 Supreme Court 258, it was held that the amplitude of the inherent powers under Section 482 remain unaffected under Section 397. In Jitender Kumar Jain vs. State of Delhi and others, (1999 SCC (Cr) 77), it was held that "it is true that a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court when one is dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Still the Court of Session is a court subordinate to the High Court and, as such its proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure". In exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the High Court can interfere with and set aside even an interlocutory order if it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court or if for the purpose of securing ends of justice, the
