IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 648 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.440/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY FIR NO.275/2005 OF CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- JESSY RAJAN, MANAGING PARTNER, SOLAR INDUSTRIES, ATTOOR.P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THOLATH HOUSE, SANTHI ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.TONY CHACKO, MR.K.I.SAGEER. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND THE COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION (CRIME NO. 279/2005) CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (KSEB) ELECTTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KUNDANNUR. 5. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(KSEB), APTS (NR) KOZHIKODE. R1BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.648 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.440/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry, taken cognizance for the offences under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 126 and 135 of Indian Electricity Act on Annexure-A2 final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Cheruthuruthy. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that by Annexure-A6, the Assistant Executive Engineer has already intimated the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board that there is no necessity to proceed against the petitioner, as he had already remitted the amount due. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in view of the Division CRMC 648/10 2 Bench Decision of this Court in Paramasivam v. Union of India (2007 (2) KLT 733), the cognizance taken on Annexure-A2 final report can only be quashed. The Division Bench has already declared that there cannot be an offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code in respect of electricity. Therefore, the cognizance taken on the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. The cognizance in this case, in respect of offence under the Electricity Act, was taken in 2005, before insertion of the proviso to Section 151 of Indian Electricity Act. Therefore, as provided under Section 151, cognizance could be taken only on a complaint and not on a final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is allowed. The cognizance taken on Annexure-A2 final report in C.C.No.440/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry is quashed. 16th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv