1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No. 709 of 2010 1. Dashrath s/o Rameshwar Dhumal, Aged 28 years, Occupation Advocate, Resident of Plot No. 151, S.T. Colony, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad, 2. Hanmant s/o Pandurang Ghanwadkar, Aged 29 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Ambika Nagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad, 3. Bhupendra s/o Rambachan Sharma, Aged 28 years, Occupation Private Service, Resident of Plot No. 151, S.T. Colony, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. Applicants V E R S U S Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Parbhani, through Deputy Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Parbhani Shri. Digambar Durgadas Rathod, M.S.E.D.C.L., Aged 44 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Parbhani, Now at Aurangabad Respondent Mr. B.R. Sontakke Patil, Advocate for the applicants Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for the respondent / sole CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 27th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to challenge the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 3rd December, 2009, issuing process against the present applicants in Special Case No. 173 of 2009, alleging offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the applicants and one more person. Section 135 2 of the Act provides punishment for theft of electricity and other offences. 2. The complaint was lodged by a generating Company through its employee one Digamber Rathod against the applicants and one more person by name Vinayak Baban Jadhav. The complainant in his complaint stated that on 11th August, 2009, the members of Flying Squad visited a house premises, in which an electric meter was fixed for supplying electricity for domestic use. The electric meter stood in the name of the other accused Vinayak Jadhav. It was found that the present applicants and Vinayak Jadhav were using the electricity supply through the electric meter for their domestic purpose. On examination of the electric meter, it was found that it was tampered and it was recording less consumption of electricity. On the basis of this allegation, the complaint was lodged on 27th November, 2009 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. As said above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the present applicants and the other accused Vinayak Jadhav. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants raised two points, first is that the representative of the complainant / Company had no authority to lodge the complaint, and in view of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the learned Judge could not have taken cognizance of the complaint. Section 151 of the Act reads as under : “Section 151. Cognizance of offences : No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose. [Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence 3 punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) : Provided further that a Special Court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.] 4. Admittedly, the complainant is a generating company. When a generating Company is filing complaint, Section 151 of the Act does not require such Company to send their authorized representative to the Court. Section 151 impliedly indicates that anyone representing such generating company would be able to lodge the complaint of this nature. So, the learned Judge did not err in taking cognizance of the complaint. The reliance on two Judgments of this Court i. e. Vijay Bhagwan Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and another (2009 All MR (Cri) 1347) and Shakambari Industries and another v. State of Maharashtra and another (2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 322) is misplaced, because in those cases the complaints were lodged by some junior officer of the Electricity Board. The complaints probably were lodged when the generating Companies of the Board were not established. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants secondly submitted that his clients are not concerned with the payment of electricity charges as they are not owners of the house and the electric meter did not stand in their name. He impliedly suggested that his clients are using the electricity in the house as licencee or tenants of the owner, the other accused Vinayak Jadhav. He also tried to suggest that besides the applicants, there are several other occupants of the said house, who are not made accused in this case. He urged the Court to stop the abuse of process, so that his clients would be relieved of this unnecessary prosecution. I am afraid, these submissions are of no avail. One has to see the contents of the complaint in order to appreciate its repercussion. The complaint 4 clearly mentioned that the applicants and other accused Vinayak Jadhav were found utilizing electricity supplied through the defective meter. All of them thus were accused of stealing the electricity. It is now for the applicants to face the trial and raise appropriate defence to get an appropriate relief. At this stage, I cannot assume that the applicants had no concern with the electric meter or the electricity supplied through it. Hence, the application should fail. Applications stands dismissed. Observations made in this order shall not influence the learned Judge during the trial. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/ca/709/10