SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(MP) 200

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. S. JHA, P. C. AGRAWAL
HARGYAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION 96 Of 1992
Decided On : 01/31/2003

Advocates Appeared:
DIPAK SRIVASTAVA, J.P.Gupta, K.N.Gupta, PADAM SINGH

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'person aggrieved' in Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act has a wide connotation, allowing any officer of the Electricity Board appointed at a particular place to look after the supply of electricity and a consumer of electricity to lodge a complaint and initiate prosecution.

Headnote:

Electricity Theft - Indian Electricity Act - Section 50 - [IPC, Section 379, Indian Electricity Act, Section 39, Section 50] - The court resolved the controversy regarding the competency to file a complaint for an offence under Section 379, IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. The court discussed the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act and the conflicting views on whether a complaint can be filed by an officer of the Electricity Board. The court emphasized the wide connotation of the term 'person aggrieved' and held that the complaint can be lodged by any officer of the Electricity Board appointed at a particular place to look after the supply of electricity. The court also held that a consumer of electricity is also a person aggrieved and can initiate prosecution.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a controversy over the competency to file a complaint for an offence under Section 379, IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. The conflicting views arose on whether a complaint can be filed by an officer of the Electricity Board.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the complaint can be lodged by any officer of the Electricity Board appointed at a particular place to look after the supply of electricity. Additionally, the court held that a consumer of electricity is also a person aggrieved and can initiate prosecution.

Issues: The main issue was whether a complaint for an offence under the Electricity Act can be filed by an officer of the Electricity Board or a person aggrieved by the same.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the wide connotation of the term 'person aggrieved' and held that the complaint can be lodged by any officer of the Electricity Board appointed at a particular place to look after the supply of electricity. Additionally, the court held that a consumer of electricity is also a person aggrieved and can initiate prosecution.

Final Decision: The court held that the law held down in previous cases was not a good law and answered the reference accordingly, allowing the complaint to be lodged by any officer of the Electricity Board and by a consumer of electricity.

S. S. JHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference which has been made to resolve the controversy arising out of conflicting decision of the Single Bench of this Court. Conflicting views have arisen on the point whether a complaint for an offence under Section 379, IPC read with Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act is maintainable on the complaint of Electrical Inspector or an officer of the Electricity Board is also competent to file the complaint.

( 2 ) THE only question involved in the case is whether under Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, prosecution can be lodged on the complaint of the officers of M. P. Electricity Board.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of examining the controversy it is necessary to examine the provision of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act which deals with institution of prosecution. Section 50 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:"section 50- Institution of prosecutions.- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act or any Rule, licence or order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government or a State Electricity Board or an Electrical Inspector, or of a person aggrieved by the same. "it may be mentioned here that this act was amended in the year of 1986 and prior to amendment Section 50 stood as under :"institution of prosecutions- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act or any Rule, license or Order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector, or of a person aggrieved by the same. "the question involved in the case is whether prosecution can be instituted against any person for an offence under the Electricity Act or any Rule, licence or Order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government or Electrical Inspector or Electricity Board or of a person aggrieved by the same.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that no cognizance can be taken on the complaint of theft at the instance of the officer of the Electricity Board, unless they are authorised by the Electricity Board. In the present case on failure to prove that the Junior Engineer was competent to lodge F. I. R. , entire prosecution is bad in law and conviction of the petitioner deserves to be set aside.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the word "person aggrieved" in Section 50 of the Electricity Act has a very wide connotation. The term "person aggrieved" cannot be construed narrowly. He submitted that it is electricity Board which supplies the electricity and if there is any electricity theft, it is the electricity board which is a person aggrieved by the act of theft. Therefore, being person aggrieved complaint can be lodged by any of the Officer-Incharge of the particular area. If any officer is deployed to look after the affairs of the electric supply or other work of the Board then he is a competent person to lodge complaint which shall be on behalf of Electricity Board. Any officer who is lodging the complaint will fall in the category of Principal Officer of the Electricity Board. He submitted that the complaint at the instance of Junior Engineer of Electricity Board is maintainable as he was Incharge of particular area where during the course of his duty he has detected the theft and the officer detecting the theft is an officer competent to file complaint. He also referred to resolution No. 19. 4 passed in the meeting of M. P. Electricity Board held on 28-1-1977, wherein powers were delegated to the authorities and the officers to lodge complaint on behalf of electricity Board. Resolution is reproduced below :-"19. 4 Authorisation in favour of Field Officer of the Board in regard to filing of Complaints and prosecution therefor. Decided that for the purpose of having the prosecution instituted by the Board as 'an aggrieved person' under Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 against the persons committing any offence against the said Act or any Rule or Or




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top