Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2013
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.
Shiv Sahay Singh -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another -Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case No. 746 of 2011, Cr. Misc. Case No. 747 of 2011
Decided On : 20-08-2013
Counsel for the Petitioner: Anil Kumar Singh Visen.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties :Government Advocate, A.S. Rakhara.
The main legal point established is that the applicability of sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act depends on the nature of the electricity usage, and non-compliance with procedural requirements does not necessarily invalidate the entire criminal prosecution.
Headnote:
Electricity Act - Raid, FIR, and Summoning Order - Section 135
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged under section 135 of the Electricity Act for theft of electricity. The raiding party found excessive load and theft of electricity in the premises of the petitioners, leading to the filing of FIR and summoning order. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case of excessive load fell within the ambit of section 126 of the Electricity Act, while the cases of theft of electricity under section 135 were established for the floor mill and sugar crusher. The court also held that the non-compliance of the electricity code did not vitiate the entire criminal prosecution.
Issues: The issues involved were the applicability of sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, the validity of the raid, and the alleged malafides of the raiding party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cases of excessive load fell under section 126, while the cases of theft of electricity were established under section 135. The non-compliance of the electricity code did not vitiate the entire criminal prosecution, and the alleged malafides were not proven.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both petitions, finding them without merit.
The questions of facts and law involved in both these petitions are almost similar, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgement.
By means of petition no. 746 of 2011 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) the petitioner Shiv Sahay has prayed for quashing the FIR dated 9.1.2010 arising out of case crime no. 7 of 2010 under section 135 Electricity Act, charge-sheet dated 1.2.2010 and summoning order dated 6.9.2010 and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act), Room No. 9, Sultanur in Criminal Case No. 13 of 2010.
By means of petition no. 747 of 2011 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) the petitioner Chandra Bhan Singh has prayed for quashing FIR dated 9.1.2010 arising out of case crime no. 8 of 2010 under section 135 Electricity Act, charge-sheet dated 1.2.2010 and summoning order 3.12.2010 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act), Room No.9, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2010
The factual matrix, in brief is that on 8.1.2010 the opposite party no.2 Jang Bahadur, Incharge of Enforcement Team, Faizabad along with members of team including Junior Engineer Rajiv Kumar Yadav, Sub Inspector Radhey Shyam and constable Ram Kumar raided the work place of the petitioners, situated in village Sajanpur, P.S. Akhandnagar, District Sultanpur. The Raiding party found three electric motors which were used for running rice mill, floor mill, and sugar crusher.
At same time on the same day in the same premises the rice mill was being operated by the electric motor of 20 HP . The petitioner Shiv Sahay was running the rice mill. One electric metre was installed in the premises and one more metre was also installed on a pole at considerable height . On demand being made by the raiding party the petitioners produced the paper of electric connection having No.3301/133094 of 10.5 HP. An industrial electricity metre installed in the premises having no. SIG 0270 was attached with the motor whose MD was ranging in between 2-96 KB which shows that there is difference of sanctioned load and attached load with motor. As such, it is a case of excessive load.
At same time on the same day in the same premises floor mill was also running through tapping with LT line and connecting with cable directly to electric motor of 15 HP. This floor mill was being run by petitioner Chandra Bhan Singh. The petitioner failed to show any authority to take electric connection by tapping. Hence it was found to be a case of theft of electricity covered under section 135 of the Act. Cable used for tapping with LT line and 15 HP motor by which the floor mill was being run was seized and taken in custody by the raiding party along with the two cables of three face having length of five metres after disconnecting the electricity supply .
In the same premises at same time on the same day the sugar crusher was also found to be in operation by tapping with L.T line after directly connecting cable with motor of 20 HP. The sugar crusher was also being run by the labours of the petitioner Shiv Sahay. The sugar cane of farmers was being crushed on payment basis . There were no papers of this connection and the petitioner failed to show the authority to use the electricity directly taking from tapping LT line. Hence, this case was also found to be of electricity theft covered by section 135 of the Act. The raiding party also seized the cable motor and other items, which were used for tapping with LT line . The motor could not be taken into possession as it was attached with iron bolt. The Electricity supply was disconnected.
The petitioners were asked to deposit compounding fee, for which they sought time.
