1987 Supreme(MP) 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Shankarlal - Appellant
Versus
State of M. P - Respondent
Misc. Cr. C. No. 913 of 1987 (I)
Decided on : 29-09-1987

Headnote:(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 482 and 399 (3) – inherent powers under S. 482 – have to be exercised sparingly – cannot be exercised to circumvent provisions u/s 399 (3).

       (2) Electricity Act, 1910 – S. 39 – theft of electricity – charge has to be framed u/s 39 r/w S. 379 of I.P.C.

       (3) Electricity Act, 1910 – S. 50 – even assistant engineer authorised to act on behalf of Board – junior engineer can lodge report to the police.

        Short Note

       1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), against the revisional order dated 28 – 4 – 1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Cri. Revision No. 169/1986, whereby charge u/s. 379 I. P. C. framed by the Magistrate against the petitioner has been maintained.

       2. Held : Circumstances giving rise to the application are these: On the report lodged by Junior Engineer, M. P. Electricity Board, Gurjarbardiya, Nahargarh Police launched the prosecution against the petitioner and one Bhanwarlal in respect of electricity.

       3. The Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Mandsaur framed charge u/s. 379 IPC against the petitioner. This the petitioner challenged by filing a revision. The revision has been dismissed (vide Cri. Rev. No. 169/86; dated 28 – 4 – 1987).

       4. The contention of the petitioner's learned counsel in this Court is that the material on record does not disclose that the Junior Engineer is the person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 1910 (for short 'the Act'), and therefore the prosecution is unauthorised. It is next contended that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. It is lastly contended that the charge is defective.

       5. The point for consideration is whether the application deserved to be allowed.

       6. There is the resolution No. 19 – A passed in the meeting of the M. P. Electricity Board held on 23 – 1 – 1977, according to which even Asstt. Engineers and officers – in charge have been authorised to act for and on behalf of the Board within the jurisdiction of their respective areas to move for prosecution.

       7. In the instant case, it prima facie appears that the Junior Engineer is the officer – in – charge and in that capacity he reported the matter to the Police. Though the name of the petitioner does not figure in the first information report there is the statement of Shri B. K. Tiwari to the effect that the petitioner was responsible for the theft of electricity.

       8. There is, no doubt force in the contention that the charge is defective. As pointed out in the decision in Laxmanlal's case (1985 MPLJ 125) the Charge has to be u/s. 39 of the Act read with section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

       9. As pointed out in M. M. G. M. M. Temple v. State (1987 MPLJ 481) under section 482 of the Code a party gets no vested or inherent right to seek I interference. Even where the Court below have committed any error of law or fact that by itself does not furnish an occasion for interference under the provision. The inherent powers this. 482 of the Code have to be sparingly exercised. They cannot be exercised as appellate or revisional powers or so as to circumvent the bar under Section 399 (3) of the Code. They have to be invoked only to meet the three situations mentioned therein. 1985 MPLJ 125 and 1987 MPLJ 481 relied on.

       Petition dismissed.