IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.56724 of 2007 ASHOK BHAGAT, son of Sri Ram Swarup Bhagat, Resident of Village Kantho, Police Station Simribakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ------------ 5/ 19.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 10.05.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saharsa in G.R. No. 84 of 2004, arising out of Simribakhtiyarpur P.S. case no. 08 of 2004, by which the application for discharge was rejected. One Udit Shankar Khan, Head Clerk, Electricity Supply Division lodged an F.I.R. on 23.01.2004 alleging theft of electricity and loss of the Board to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. Pursuant to the complaint, the police instituted a case under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 379 of the I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after coming of Act, 2003, no prosecution under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act is permissible. He further submits no police case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code would be maintainable in view of Section 151 and 135 of 2003, Act. He submits that the police got power to investigate only after 15.06.2007, on incorporation of Section 151(A). He further submits that in any view of the matter the Head Clerk, Electricity Supply Division, was not the competent authority to lodge the case. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Board submits that the Electricity Rules, 2005 provides power to police to investigate the complaint made to it. - 2 - Heard counsel for the parties, Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 stipulates persons, who can lodge such complaint. The complaint can be lodged either by the appropriate Government or the appropriate Commission or any of the officer authorized by them in this regard or a Chief Electrical Inspector or Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of licensee or of a generating company in a case. In the instant case, the case has been lodged by the Head Clerk, Electricity Supply Division, who is not an authorized person under Section 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 to institute a case, as such the entire prosecution based on his complaint is non-est. Thus, the entire prosecution including the impugned order dated 10.05.2007 rejecting the application of petitioner for discharge is bad in law and the same is set aside. However, the quashing application would not come in the way of the opposite party to take steps in accordance with law. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)