When legal regulations prescribe a specific procedure, such as issuing a show-cause notice within a mandatory timeframe for suspected electricity theft, failure to comply with that procedure renders further criminal proceedings invalid and justifies the quashing of the case as an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. case no. 371 of 2017 registered under sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as also to quash the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Seraikella in Electricity Case No. 85 of 2018 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 371 of 2017 whereby and where under, cognizance against the petitioner has been taken for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the M/s Baba Shyam Steel. A raid was conducted in the premises of the M/s Baba Shyam Steel on 24.12.2017 around 10:00 pm to till 3.00 am of 25.12.2017. During the raid, it was found that there was tampering of three out of four seals affixed on the four corners of the LV cover of distribution transformer installed in the premises of the consumer. Out of the four seals, three were found to be duplicate. Further, two numbers of paper seals affixed on the LV Bushing Chamber were found damaged. The bills of consumption of the electrical energy of the previous months of the consumer showed that there was irregularity in consumption of the units of electrical energy consumed by the said unit of the petitioner and the trend of consumption of electricity corroborated with theft of electric energy.

4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-division Adityapur No.2 lodged a written report basing upon which Adityapur P.S. Case No. 371 of 2017 was registered. Thereafter, Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner, basing upon which cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II- cum-Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Seraikella, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of the judgment.

5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that charge has not been framed as yet in this case.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the clauses 11.14 and 11.15 of the (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 brought into effect by the Resolution dated 07.09.2015; which has been published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary dated 09.09.2015, which read as under:

“11.14 After detailed examination of the evidence and the consumption pattern of the consumer, if the Distribution Licensee or supplier is convinced that a prima-facie case is made out for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity dishonestly against the consumer, the Distribution Licensee or supplier shall, within 7 days of inspection, serve a provisional assessment order assessed as per clause 11.24 of these Regulations along with show cause notice to the consumer, giving reasons, as to why a case of theft should not be booked against such consumer giving full details for arriving at such decision and points on which reply has to be submitted. The notice should clearly state the time, date and place at which the reply has to be submitted and the designation of the person to whom it should be addressed.

11.15 In case a show-cause notice is not served even after 30 days from date of inspection by the Distribution Licensee or supplier, the case of suspected theft shall be considered as dropped and no further acti