IMPORTANT POINT
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, and the court's role at the Section 482 Cr.P.C. stage is to determine whether a case for trial of the accused is made out based on the prosecution's allegations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri D.K. Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, the learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Jayant Mohan Verma holding brief of Mrs. Aprajita Bansal, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 13.04.2023 filed against the applicant arising out of Case Crime No. 797 of 2020, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Anti-power Theft, District Unnao, pending in the court of Additional District Judge-4, E.C. Act, Unnao in S.T. No. 1127 of 2023 as well as for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 by which cognizance has been taken by the Additional District Judge-4, E.C. Act, Unnao in Case Crime No. 797 of 2020, under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Anti-Power Theft, District Unnao in S.T. No. 1127 of 2023.

3. In the FIR lodged on 06.07.2020 it was alleged that when a team of engineers and officials of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited had checked the premises of the applicant, it was found that he had cut the service cable and was consuming electricity by bypassing the meter installed at his premises, which was an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that The applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 21799 (M/B) of 2020, which was disposed of by means of an order dated 23.11.2020 by observing that the applicant is entitled to get benefit of the provisions contained under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded that the officials of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited did not provide a CD or other device containing videography record of the testing.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the meter that was installed on the premises of the applicant has not been tested so as to ascertain any tempering etc. made by the applicant on it.

6. Section 135 of the Electricity Act provides that whoever dishonestly damages any wire or causes it to be damaged so as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, shall be guilty of committing theft of electricity.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Poonam Vashisth, 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1515, wherein it was held that the rules require that to prove the theft of electricity it was the basic requirement that the meter must have been checked from the concerned laboratory.

8. Section 135(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides as follows:-

"135. Theft of Electricity.–

(1) Whoever, dishonestly,–

* * *

(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or"

9. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in 135(1)(c) of the Electricity Act indicates that an offence of theft of electricity is made out when the service cable is cut so as to draw electricity and in such a contingency, there is no need of any tempering having been made with the meter. Therefore, where the allegations are such as have been levelled in the present case, there is absolutely no need for checking of the meter. The 'rules referred to in the judgment in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, might have been different in that state, which are not applicable in the state of U.P.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant has next relied upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court in K. Sundaram v. S.P. Rajmanikam & Anr., 1987 CrL.J. 247. This case arose from a judgment of acquittal passed after conclusion of the trial, after assessment of the evidence led by the parties. In the present case, that stage is yet to reach.

11. So far as submission regarding non furnishing of