Criminal Misc. No.M-30820 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-30820 of 2009 Date of decision : 13-11-2009 Baldev Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior DAG, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The petitioner herein has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.16 dated 14.09.2009 under section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 registered at P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Jalandhar. The allegation against the petitioner is that at the time of inspection of his premises on May 23, 2009, it was found that he was indulging in theft of energy. On the basis of the load installed in the premises at the time of inspection, the demand of Rs. 2,36,718/- was raised against the petitioner on 29.05.2009. The petitioner having failed to deposit the amount after opportunity granted to him, the FIR Criminal Misc. No.M-30820 of 2009 -2- in question was registered against him for theft of energy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the final order determining the amount payable by the petitioner on account of theft of energy. At the time of inspection of premises on 23.05.2009, no one from the side of petitioner was associated. He further submitted that the reason for raising the arbitrary demand against the petitioner is that earlier he was working as President of constituency of District Akali Jatha Jalandhar. However, later on he had left that and become member of Congress Party and was appointed as Secretary, Congress Party on April 15, 2009. To know the exact details of the inspection carried out by the Punjab State Electricity Board, notice was also issued to the Assistant Executive Engineer, S.S. Bastiyan, Sub Division, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the State submitted that at the time of inspection on May 23, 2009, the son of the petitioner Tejinder Jit Singh was present at the spot, however he refused to sign the inspection memo. It was further submitted that at the premises, the petitioner was keeping 80-90 cattles as it was a dairy. The load which was found installed at the premises at the time of inspection was 8.589 KW. From the spot 200 meters three phase wire was recovered through which the petitioner was stealing electricity from a Low Tension Line meant for supply of power to tubewell connection. It was further submited that there is no meter installed at the premises of the petitioner for supply of energy. It is further submitted Criminal Misc. No.M-30820 of 2009 -3- that petitioner has three other domestic connections in his name in the area of Basti Peer Dad, Jalandhar bearing account No.KT 12 1552, KT 12 2533 and KT 12 2535. In all these connections, petitioner was a defaulter since March 2009 and on account of non- payment of bill, the supply to the aforesaid electric connections have been disconnected. It was further submitted that petitioner did not raise any objection to the demand raised against him before the competent authority. He filed a petition before the Review Committee on July 17, 2009 which was dismissed on July 29, 2009. This fact has not even been mentioned in the petition. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had also challenged the demand raised against him on account of theft of energy by filing a civil suit dated October 9, 2009 in which interim stay was not granted and the same is still pending. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that it is a clear case of theft of energy and the petitioner having not even deposited the amount of demand raised against him, is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. In response to the submissions made by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation that the petitioner is defaulter in domestic electric connections installed in his name is patently false. In fact, there are other electric connections in the name of the petitioner, but he is not defaulter in any one of them. As regards the filing of the petition before the Review Committee is concerned, the counsel responded by stating that the Review Committee did not have the jurisdiction. Criminal Misc. No.M-30820 of 2009 -4- Learned counsel did not deny that the factum of his filing petition before the Review Committee is not mentioned in the petition though the present petition has been filed after the dismissal of the petition by the Review Committee. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition as far as grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is concerned. It has been pointed out that at the time of inspection on May 23, 2009, though the son of the petitioner was present but he refused to sign the inspection memo. 200 meters of wire through which the electricity was being stolen was taken into custody. It is not in dispute that it was a dairy farm where 80-90 cattles were kept by the petitioner but there was no electric connection. On the basis of inspection carried out on May 23, 2009, notice of demand of Rs. 2,36,718/- was issued to the petitioner on May 29, 2009. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was a final demand notice and he did not have any remedy against that has no legs to stand as till the filing of a petition before the Review Committee on July 17, 2009, he had not responded against demand notice issued against him on May 29, 2009, either asking for details of the demand or seeking final determination of the amount in terms of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. It is not the case that the petitioner raised objections against the demand raised and some authorities refused to entertain the same by opining that demand already raised against the petitioner was final. In any case, even in that eventuality, the petitioner had the remedy of filing an appeal to the authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Criminal Misc. No.M-30820 of 2009 -5- Still further, the petitioner had approached even the civil court challenging the demand in October 2009 and there also he has not been able to establish that no case was made out against him and the demand is arbitrary, as no interim stay has been granted to the petitioner. Even at the time of hearing on a specific query by the court as to whether the petitioner is still ready and willing to deposit the amount of demand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions to make such a statement. Still further the stand of the petitioner that his premises have been raided only because earlier he was affiliated to the ruling party and now he has shifted to the opposite camp is wholly misconceived as even a person who is in power cannot be permitted to indulge in theft of energy. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 13.11.2009 JUDGE manju