ORAL ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[2.0] By way of present petition under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.II-178 of 2024 registered with G.U.V.N.L. Police Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad for the offence under Section 135(1)

(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

[3.0] It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned FIR is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that on 02.01.2024 the respondent No.2 alongwith police persons carried out raid on the premises of petitioner and it was found that service of meter is disconnected. However, the petitioner has taken direct power from L.T. Network and therefore, has committed theft of electricity. In this regard, impugned FIR came to be filed on 12.01.2024.

[4.0] Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that impugned FIR is baseless and on vexatious grounds and filed in a very stereotype manner and no ground is made out register the FIR. He has mainly submitted that as per the mandatory provision of section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, Authorized OfÏcer shall have to lodge the FIR in writing within 24 hours from the time of disconnection. Herein, the electricity connection is disconnected on 02.01.2024 and FIR is filed on 12.01.2024 i.e. after a delay of almost 10 days. Further, he has submitted that Indian Electricity Act is a special Act and always delay is fatal aspect in lodging of the criminal prosecution. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition considering the law laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeshkumar Khimjibhai Jakasania & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.4465 of 2010 vide order dated 12.01.2023 by submitting that in the said case, FIR was filed after a delay of 72 hours and on the said ground, the said proceedings were quashed.

[5.0] Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the record, it appears that the main contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that FIR is filed belatedly.

[6.0] It appears that the FIR is filed under the Indian Electricity Act, which is a special Act and the coordinate Bench of this Court had been pleased to discuss the provisions of the Electricity Act and procedure of sections 99 to 101 of the CrPC in the case of Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2008(3) GLR 2026, wherein in paragraph 12, it has been held as under:

“12. As far as the delay in filing FIR is concerned, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. This is not a case in which the offence in question is punishable under IPC where there is a requirement to lodge complaint immediately after the incident takes place so that the complaint may not be lodged on an after thought. In cases where offence is under IPC delay in filing FIR creates doubt about the prosecution case. The instant case is registered under 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, and therefore, question of filing complaint on an after thought or with ulterior motive to implicate the accused does not arise. In the present case, on the day of the incident Rojkam and map was prepared and Muddamal was recovered and immediately sent to the ofÏce. There is no period of limitation prescribed under the Electricity Act to lodge the complaint within a prescribed time. When the signature of the accused is obtained on Exh.16 Rojkam on the same day, then it can very well be said that the incident took place on 26th April,2005. As far as the legal position is concerned PW 4 Mr. H.L. Bhalsod visited the premises only for serving the notice in the capacity of a Junior Engineer, MGVCL and not as an Investigating OfÏcer on getting any information of theft. Therefore, the Rojkam which is prepared by Mr. Bhalsold a