1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.233/2009. Shri Sadashiv s/o Kondopant Kulkarni - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) Shri Hanumant Sheshrao Shinde and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.B.A.Darak, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 to 6; Mr.V.D.Godbharle, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties heard finally. 2) The order dated 28th June, 2007, recorded by Special Judge, Beed in Special Case no. 45/2005, whereby the learned Special Judge has discharged the accused from the prosecution in terms of Sections 139 and 140 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act), is questioned by the original complainant. 3) The Counsel representing the accused 2 submits, that the order does not warrant any interference since the F.I.R. is not by authorized person in view of Section 151. According to the Counsel, Sadashiv Kondopant Kulkarni, could not be an authorized person/officer to prosecute the matter for infraction of any of the provisions of the said Act. 4) The Counsel for the accused placed reliance to the Judgment in the matter of Vijay Bhagwan Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2009 All M.R.(Cri.) 1347), to stress that cognizance of offence under the Act could not have been taken, as the Executive Engineer, neither being Chief Electrical Inspector, nor an Electrical Inspector, could not have prosecuted the matter. 5) The factual matrix illustrate that unauthorized electrical pole was tried to be erected in his field by the accused persons. They even disconnected the live cable/wire from the existing pole, dismantled that pole and saw that the electricity supply flows from the newly erected pole by connecting the wire thereof. This, according to the original complainant - Sadashiv Kulkarni, was totally unauthorized act, it was intrusion to his right of enjoying his property coupled with high-handedness of those accused. 3 6) The crucial point in the matter is, it is not the report alone of Sadashiv Kulkarni, but the application to the police was moved by Waghchoure, Jr.Engineer of the Department on 28.12.2004, naming the accused as to how and in what manner they have effected unauthorized and illegal act and also sought police protection. It was based on this report, the investigation was carried and charge sheet came to be filed. Though I find in the final report, at first page in the column of complainant's name, it is indicated as Sadashiv Kulkarni, however, in the list of witnesses to the final report, it indicates at Sr.No.2 name of Ramesh Waghchoure is referred as complainant The formal omission to refer Ramesh as complainant in the first part at column no.9, by itself will not distort entire proceedings to get benefit of discharge for offence under Section 139 and 140 of the said Act. 7) The competency of said Ramesh Waghchoure or his authorization could not be tested at this stage as it is apparently a matter of evidence. The order of the learned Judge consequently requires interference. 8) The discharge of the applicants/accused for the offence under Section 139 and 140 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, by order dated 20th June, 2007, is set aside. The learned Judge 4 will not be influenced by the observations made in the present proceedings. 9) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv233.09