* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3460 OF 2008 Jerry Vargheses .....Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra through Dindoshi P.Stn .....Respondents ======== Mr.Avinash Fatangare, adv.for applicant. Mrs.A.A.Mane, A.P.P.for State-respondent. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 5TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. This Application is for quashing the proceedings of Electricity Special Case No.5 of 2006 pending before the Sessions court arising out of charge sheet C.R.No. 151 of 1997 registered with Dindoshi Police Station under Section 39, 43 of Electricity Supply Act read with Section 379 IPC. 2. The complaint was made by one Y.V.Mistry an officer of Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Ltd (BSES Ltd). It was alleged in the complaint that the company by name M/s.Tarmat Constructions Pvt Ltd had stolen electricity measuring 5866 * 2 * units amounting to Rs.35,000/- by means of direct illegal connection through the cut-out. The company had earlier filed a complaint with BSES Ltd that its meter bearing No. 8105487 was burnt on 14th February 1997 and made a request for a new meter. On 14th March, 1997 when Y.V.Mistry an Engineer employed with BSES Ltd visited the premises of the company, he noticed that direct connection had been made by the company to the cutout and electricity had been abstracted. Therefore, he filed the complaint on the same date. 3. Mr.Fatangare, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has not made out any connection between the applicant and the company in order to proceed against him. There is no dispute that the applicant is the Managing Director of M/s.Tarmat Constructions Pvt.ltd. It is next contended that there has been inordinate delay in prosecuting the applicant, the applicant having a right to speedy trial, should not be subjected to the trial after a long interval of 12 years. Perusal of the affidavit filed by the State shows that the proceedings before the trial court are today at the stage of evidence. The case is posted to 13th January, 2009 for recording of evidence. It is complained that on the last date, the applicant had not appeared before the trial court and the matter came to be * 3 * adjourned. The facts alleged in the F.I.R., on face value, do constitute the offence alleged. This is also not the case of any manifest justice or abuse of process of law. In the circumstances, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, the application is dismissed. The trial court to decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the order. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]