THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21531 OF 2007 Dated 23rd June, 2010 Between: Erukalla Ramesh …Petitioner And The Northern Power Distribution and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to quash FIR No.2183 of 2007 on the file of Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Karimnagar. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill. The said Rice Mill holds an LT service connection under an agreement entered into with the respondents. On 26.07.2007, the petitioner’s service connection was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE-II, Karimnagar on receiving complaint from the Assistant Divisional Engineer/HT/Karimnagar. During the said inspection conducted by the said Officer, the following incriminating points were stated to have been noticed. “It is observed that the test block seals are in tampered condition. The meter incoming connection top R & Y phases coming from TTB are removed from original place and shifted to idle port, so as to not recording the meter in R & Y phases. The consumer dishonestly using the supply by meddling with the connections in the TTB.” Following the said inspection, the meter was seized and the Inspecting Officer has addressed letter No.ADE.DPE.II KNR Dock No.MP No.224/07-08 dated 27.07.2007, to the Inspector of Police, APTS, Karimnagar, which was registered as Crime No.2183 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 125 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”). Feeling aggrieved by registration of the case, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted stay of prosecution of the petitioner, by order dated 09.10.2007. At the hearing, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly advanced two contentions, namely; that the Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE, who inspected the service connection was not authorised to inspect and therefore, the complaint registered on the basis of such inspection cannot be sustained and that the Inspecting Officer failed to seize the incriminating material in terms of the provisions of Section 135 (2) (c) read with Sub-Section (4) of Section 135 of the Act and therefore, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Opposing these contentions, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that as per the Regulations approved by the Andhra Pradesh Regulatory Commission and notified under Clause 5.1 of the Regulations of the Central Power Distribution Company Limited, the Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE is competent to inspect and therefore, there was no irregularity or illegality in the inspection made by the said Officer. In reply to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Inspecting Officer has seized the meter and the seal bits following the procedure prescribed by the extant Regulations governing the inspection and therefore, the statutory provisions of Section 135 of the Act have not been violated. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 135 of the Act deals with theft of electricity. While declaring that whoever dishonestly abstracts electricity in the manner as indicated in the various sub-clauses of the said provision shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Under the first proviso to Sub-Section (1A) of Section 135 of the Act, only such Officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the appropriate commission or any other Officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity. Under the second proviso, such Officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in the police station having jurisdiction. Under Regulation 5.1 of the Regulations, approved by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, various Officers were designated for the purpose of Section 135 of the Act. In respect of LT- III Industrial Category, AE (DPE)/ADE/DE/ & SE are notified as authorised Officers. In the instant case, the service connection, which falls under LT-III Industrial Category, was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE. Undoubtedly he is an Officer in rank higher than the Assistant Engineer DPE, who was notified as one of the authorised Officers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE had no authority to inspect the premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on Sub- Section (2) of Section 135 of the Act and submitted that even assuming that the Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE had authority to disconnect power supply and give a complaint, it is only the Assistant Engineer DPE or any other Officer who is notified under Regulation 5.1 of the Regulations that is entitled to enter, inspect, search, seize etc., under the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 135 of the Act. In my opinion, the word “authorised” occurring in Sub-Section (2) of Section 135 of the Act is required to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Sub-Section (1A) and not in isolation. It would be wholly futile to say that a higher Officer has power to disconnect and give a complaint but not to enter and inspect the premises or search or seize the devices, instruments, wires etc used for the purpose of pilferage. Such a narrow interpretation of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 135 of the Act would render the purpose of the provision otiose. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel does not merit acceptance. Coming to the second contention of the learned counsel, he placed heavy reliance on Sub-Sections (2) and (4) of Section 135 of the Act to buttress his contention that the search and seizure shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that the Inspecting Officer has not seized the equipment. In the counter-affidavit, it is specifically averred that during the inspection, the Inspecting Officer had seized the meter and other incriminating material in accordance with the departmental procedure. The fact that the Inspecting Officer seized the meter and the seal bits is referred to in his letter dated 27.07.2007 addressed to the Inspector of Police, on the basis of which the crime has been registered. Therefore, it is idle to contend that the Inspecting Officer has not seized the incriminating material. Insofar as Sub-Section (4) of Section 135 of the Act is concerned, which applied the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for searches and seizures, a careful reading of the said provision discloses that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were made applicable “as far as may be” to the searches and seizures made under the 2003 Act. Therefore, if the respondents followed the departmental procedure, it cannot be said that failure of strict compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates the criminal proceedings. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. By indulging in vexatious litigation, the petitioner has successfully stalled the prosecution for more than 2 ½ years. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to saddle the petitioner with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to the respondents. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 09.10.2007 is vacated. WPMP No.27930 of 2007 and WVMP No.2376 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd June, 2010 vrn