Back
1989 Supreme(All) 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. MALVIYA, B. P. SINGH
JHANSI CONCRETE PRODUCTS JHANSI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 20624 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/03/1989
Dharam Pal Singh, V.P.Pathak
The court should not interfere in the investigation process unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY ACT - SECTIONS 30/40/44 - INVESTIGATION OF ELECTRICITY THEFT - INTERPRETATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS - COURT'S INTERFERENCE IN INVESTIGATION:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, M/s. Jhansi Concrete Products, challenged an investigation initiated against them under Sections 30/40/44 of the Electricity Act for alleged theft of electricity. The petitioner claimed to have made a deposit for a burnt meter and received permission for a direct connection until its replacement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the investigation should proceed as per the law and the Investigating Officer should determine whether the petitioner's claims were genuine or not. The court declined to interfere in the investigation process.
Issues: 1. Whether the court should interfere in the investigation of an alleged electricity theft case where the petitioner claimed to have made a deposit and received permission for a direct connection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it should not interfere in the investigation process as it is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer to determine the genuineness of the petitioner's claims and submit a final report. The court noted that the petitioner could apply for bail if necessary.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the authorities to dispose of the petitioner's bail application on the same day of surrender or on the next date fixed, after obtaining personal bonds for their presence.
( 1 ) THE petitioner M/s. Jhansi Concrete Products, Jhansi along with its partners has moved this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the investigation pursuant, to the first information report giving rise to Crime No. 245 of 1988 under Ss. 30/40/44 of the Electricity Act, P. S. Jhansi. As per allegations in the first information report, a flying squad of the Electricity Department on 22nd June, 1988, found the meter of the petitioners firm burnt and the electricity to the concern connected with the main line. As per allegations in the first information report the petitioners were guilty of theft of electricity making them liable to prosecution under Ss. 39/40/44 of the Electricity Act.
( 2 ) SHRI Dharam Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although a bare perusal of the first information report may disclose an offence, yet if the other attending circumstances are taken into consideration which according to him have been brought to the notice of this Court in the form of other annexures to the writ petition, then it would be evident that the petitioners are not guilty of having committed any offence at all. He referred to the letter by the Managing Partner of the petitioners firm dated 20th June, 1988 to S. D. O. II, E. D. S. D. Jhansi (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), which shows that the meter installed at the premises of the petitioners had got burnt and a request was made for direct connection to the factory till the replacement of the meter for which necessary charges as per rule were sought to be deposited. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is a photostat copy of the receipt issued by the U. P. Electricity Board showing that the petitioners on 20th June, 1988 made a deposit of a sum of Rs. 450/- on account of burnt meter. Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a letter dated 11-7-1988 from the S. D. O. , Electricity Distribution Sub Division II, Jhansi to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jhansi, stating that on the deposit being made of Rs. 450/- on 20th June, 1988, the electricity connection was made directly to M/s. Jhansi Concrete Products, Jhansi, by the Junior Engineer on the request of the Executive Engineer. Although there seems to be no such request forthcoming from the side of the Executive Engineer, learned counsel still relied on a letter of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jhansi, dated 17th Sept. 1988, addressed to the Inspector of the Flying Squad, Kanpur Zone mentioning the fact that the direct supply of electricity to the petitioners firm had been made by the Junior Engineer on 20th June, 1988 after getting the deposit of Rs. 450/-, as it was permissible to provide direct supply up to a period of 15 days. The letter shows that the Executive Engineer wanted the flying squad to make inspection after informing the authorities of the Electricity Department in the relevant zone so that such action which may bring the Department in bad repute in the eye of public may not be repeated time and again.
( 3 ) WHETHER the flying squad should inform the Department people or not is a matter to be decided by the flying squad itself, as the object of the flying squad is to check such illegal connections which may have been made in connivance with the Department. However, if a valid deposit as contemplated under the Rules was made and if there was sanction for direct connection according to Rules as is claimed by the petitioner in this petition, it will be clear that the petitioner cannot be held to have committed any offence, as they were then not guilty of any theft of electricity who were consuming electricity in accordance with the Rules on payment of usual charges. However, this enquiry and investigation is not to be done by this Court. Investigation in this respect is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer after going through all these documents along with such other materia
