Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner has challenged the validity, propriety and legality of the First Information Report in case crime No. 225 of 2014, under Section 138-B of Electricity Act registered at P.S. Binawar, District Budaun, whereas it has been alleged that a team of Assistant Engineer alongwith others visited the villages Sadullahpur Kitara, Chandaura, Bichharayya, etc. under the Police Station Binawar on 19.6.2014. The enforcement party found that 14 persons of aforesaid village had connected their electricity connections after the electricity department had earlier disconnected their electricity connections. As regard the petitioner is concerned, it is stated in the First Information Report thus:

^^blds ckn xzke fcNj;k igqWpsA v'kksd dqekj ,l0@vks0 jkeiky cqd la0 1123@dus0 la0 024282 cdk;k 51540 cdk;k gfjuUnu ,l0@vks0 xaxk flg cad la0 1123@dus0 la0 050739 cdk;k 47752 cdk;k ?kjsyw eksguyky ,0@vks0 [;kyh jke cqd la0 1120@dus0 la0 051942 cdk;k 36145 cdk;k ij dVk dusD'ku pyrk gqvk ik;k x;kA^^

2. The petitioner was proceeded against under Section 148-B of the Electricity Act for the offence committed by him, which is punishable up to 3 years, is cognizable as non-bailable as provided under the Electricity Act.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 151-A of the aforesaid Act, gives only power of investigation to the concerned police station but provisions of Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. does not provide for any power of arrest yet the police of P.S. Binawar are making attempt to arrest the petitioner, which is without jurisdiction.

4. It is further contended that Section 41-A Cr.P.C provides that arrest of the accused person for offence punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less are not to be made in a routine manner and arrest can be effected only after issuance of notice and in default of conditions mentioned therein. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises.

5. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, 2014 (8) SCC 273, wherein the Apex Court has observed that directions issued therein shall apply in all such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine- Police officers shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not authorise detention casually and mechanically- Failure to comply with these directions, shall apart from rendering police officers concerned liable for departmental action, also make them liable to be punished for contempt of Court- Authorising detention without recording reasons by Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by appropriate High Court- Copy of judgment to be forwarded to Chief Secretaries as also DGs of Police of all States, Union Territories and Registrar General of all High Courts for ensuring compliance therewith- Police- Arrest- Penal Code, 1860- S.498A- Constitution of India, Articles 21 and 22(2).

6. The petitioner in this regard has further placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Shaukin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Laws (All)-2011-9-22.

7. From the extract quoted by us in the body of judgment, it is clear that electricity dues were not paid by Ashok Kumar S/o Ram Pal, Harinandan S/o Ganga Singh, Gharelu Mohanlal S/o Khyali Ram and their energy supply line was earlier disconnected but at the rime of raid their electricity connection found to be re-connected while amounted to theft of electricity.

8. As regard the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Arnesh Ku