1. This is a petition for quashment of order dated 21.4.09 passed by Special Judge, (Electricity), Ratlam in Special Case No. 56/09 whereby the case has been registered against the petitioners for an offence alleged to have been committed under section 135 of Electricity Act.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Special Judge, Ratlam against the petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed under section 135 of Electricity Act alleging that the petitioner No. 1 is having industrial power connection bearing No. 91-03-657396. It was alleged that from the premises where the connection was installed petitioner No.1 is running Poultry Farm in the name and style 'M/s. S.R. Poultry Farm'. It was alleged that on 18.3.09 upon inspection it was found that petitioner No.1 has made arrangement by installing two way switch in such a manner so that the electrical meter (which shows the reading) works as per desire of respondent No.1 It was alleged that appellants were stealing energy by using the said two way switch and the electricity which were being consumed was not recorded in the said meter. It was alleged that Panchnama was prepared on spot. It was alleged that petitioners No.3 and 4 were available on spot as representative of petitioner No.1. It was alleged that both of them (petitioners No.3 and 4) refused to sign the panchnama. It was further alleged that by stealing the energy petitioners have committed an offence which is punishable under section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. It was prayed that after taking cognizance and also after framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioners be convicted. Upon the complaint filed by respondent cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.4.09, against which present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that the impugned order whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the complaint was filed by Sub-Engineer, who was not authorised to file the complaint as per section 151 of Electricity Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Bapupuri v. M.P. Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. 2009 (2) JLJ 168=2009 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 109 wherein complaint filed by Junior Engineer who was not authorised to file complaint, it was held that cognizance of the offence taken by the trial Court is illegal and whole trial was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that the electricity connection was in the name of petitioner No.1. It is submitted that petitioners No.2 to 4 are not connected with the offence in any manner. It is submitted that petitioners No.3 and 4 have been made accused because they refused to sign the Panchnama. It is submitted that even if the petitioners No.3 and 4 have refused to sign Panchnama, then too, it cannot be said that petitioners No.3 and 4 have committed an offence punishable under section 135 of Electricity Act. It is submitted that if a person refused to sign the Panchnama, then he commits an offence under section 100 CrPC and is liable to be prosecuted under section 187 IPC. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, learned counsel submits that even if the entire facts alleged in the complaint is taken to be true, then too, no offence is made out against the petitioner No.2. It is submitted that keeping in view the aforesaid position of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the complaint filed by the respondents be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that it is true that the complaint has been filed by Sub-Engineer, but he was authorised to file the complaint for which notification has been filed. It is submitted that the law laid down in the matter of Bapupuri (supra) is not applicable in the present case as in