cra3390.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3390 OF 2011 Kasabai w/o Gangaram Mohite, Age-50 years, Occu:Agri & Household, R/o-Moujpuri, Tq. & Dist-Jalna. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Moujpuri, Tq. & Dist-Jalna, 2) The Superintendent of Police, Jalna, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.J. Salunke Advocate for Applicant. Shri.G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3197 OF 2011 Mr. Rameshwar Pralhad Mahadik, Age-35 years, Occu:Agri. & Business, R/o-Moujpuri, Tq. & Dist-Jalna. ...APPLICANT. cra3390.11 2 VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through P.I. Police Station Moujpuri, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.S.B. Deshpande Advocate for Applicant. Shri.G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Both these Applications are filed for anticipatory bail in C.R. No.73 of 2011 registered in Moujpuri Police Station, Dist-Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 135, 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The papers of investigation were made available. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of cra3390.11 3 report given by officer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation. The Corporation had given the work of fixing poles and laying lines to one company from Hyderabad. Supply of electricity was to be made under the scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electricity Programme and the connections were to be given to the persons living below poverty line. The officers of the Corporation noticed that at-least in five cases from Maujpuri, the connections of electricity were given and theft of electricity was committed. The connections were not given to the persons entitled to take such connections under the scheme. Allegations are made that at other place also poles were erected and supply was made. The allegations are made against the sub- contractor Mandlik, who was appointed by the company, to which the work was allotted by the Corporation. The other five accused are the farmers, who took the electricity connections illegally. cra3390.11 4 3. The Advocate for the Applicant from the proceeding of Criminal Application No.3390 of 2011 submitted that in the month of January, 2011 itself, Applicant had applied for electricity connection to the Corporation. Xerox copy of the application is produced. It was submitted that Applicant bonafidely believed that the person who was executing work, had come there from Corporation, so she gave Rs.24,000/- to him, the Applicant from the proceeding of Criminal Application No.3197 of 2011. The Advocate was asked to produce record, if any, in respect of the payment allegedly made, but he submitted that there is no such record. Admittedly, the poles were erected in the field of this Applicant and after taking the connection of electricity, the electricity was consumed. 4. It was submitted for the Applicant in Criminal Application No.3197 of 2011 that he is cra3390.11 5 only sub-contractor and he was acting as per the directions given by the main contractor, to whom the work was given by the Corporation. This contention cannot be accepted at this stage, as for execution of such work there is a plan and even the names of beneficiaries are there. Further, the other Applicant, the farmer, is making allegation that an amount of Rs.24,000/- was accepted by the sub-contractor for giving the connection. There was no such authority to sub- contractor. Copy of agreement executed by the main contractor in favour of sub-contractor, is produced and it is with regard to broad nature of work. The details are there including the names of beneficiaries and that record must be available. Further, it is admitted that name of the Applicant from the proceedings of Criminal Application No.3390 of 2011 is not there in the list of the beneficiaries for whom the scheme was prepared. 5. It was also submitted for the sub- cra3390.11 6 contractor that the cognizance could not have been taken by the police. There is no force in this submission. Even on police report, Court can take cognizance, provided that the report is given by the officer of M.S.E.B. to the police. It was also submitted that such offences are compoundable and so the relief can be given. This submission also cannot be accepted. These days, Government Departments and Corporations are getting the work done by outsourcing and if such incidents are not checked in initial stage, such incidents will increase and there will be apprehension in respect of the policy by which the work is done byway of outsourcing. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the nature of allegations, this Court holds that it is not a case to grant relief. There is clear possibility that some officers of M.S.E.B., Corporation must have joined hands, otherwise such courage is not shown by a person like sub- cra3390.11 7 contractor. That needs to be found out and for that custodial interrogation is a must. So, both the Criminal Applications stand rejected. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] asb/AUG11