Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17110 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Abdul Husnain @ Md. Chunnu S/O Late Abdul Rahman Resident Of Milan Store Company At Mohalla Shahganj, Police Station Sultanganj, In The Town And District Of Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rashid Rais, Adv. For BSEB : Mr. A.K.Karn, Adv. For the State : Mr.Binod Kumar No.3, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 6 05-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the FIR of Sultanganj P.S.Case No. 27 of 2011 for the offences [STATUTE] s that the premises of the petitioner was raided by the Officers of the Electricity Board where they found that there was a cutting in the wire of service wire before entering into the meter and thereby illegally consumed the power. It has been alleged as it was a commercial connection of 11.19 KV, the authority assessed the loss of Rs.2,70,000/- by the illegal consumption of electricity. It has been submitted that the meter was seized on 7th February 2011 showing reading at 20276 but the bill which has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17110 of 2011 (6) dt.05-12-2012 2 / 2 2 been served was showing 24352 units consumed during the period 13.2.2011 to 28.2.2011 which is completely erroneous. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the meter itself was taken away, there cannot be showing of such consumption of power. The Board has filed counter affidavit annexing the copy of corrected current bill thereby the bill of Rs.25,199/- has been brought to Rs.13,717.27 and error has been rectified. Counsel for the petitioner has raised other points thereby challenged the illegal consumption of power. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be decided at this stage and this can only be decided during the trial. This Court does not find any merit in the present application, except as has been modified by the Board itself. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 138

Statute Text:
Section 138 of the Indian Penal Code. Abetment of act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, if the offence be committed in consequence. Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or air Force, of the Government of India, shall, if such act of insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.