IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 431 of 2006 ------------------------ CRIME NO. 11/2006 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- K.P. HUSSAIN, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, K.S. HOUSE, VALAPPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KESRALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O. TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRIC SECTION DHARMASALA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN(SR.)SC,KSEB FOR R2 SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. THOMAS JOHN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-7-2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.A. NO. 703/2006 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 431/2006 DISMISSED. 29-7-2008 SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 431 of 2006 ========================= Dated this the 29th day of July 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the Managing Partner of Laser Vineers and Plywoods at Kannur District and is conducting S.S.I. unit by drawing electricity from Consumer No.4659 under the operative jurisdiction of the second respondent. On 30-12-2005, the Anti Power Theft Squad of K.S.E.B. inspected the S.S.I. unit of the petitioner and lodged the F.I.R. before the first respondent on the basis of which Crime No.11/2006 was registered against the petitioner under Section 135 B of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Photocopy of the F.I.R. dated 30-12-2005 is produced as Annexure-AI. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. and the subsequent proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel Sri. N.N.Sugunapalan for the CRMC431/2006 -2- second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The grievance of the petitioner as alleged in this petition is that Annexure-A1, F.I.R. has been lodged by the 2nd respondent in this petition before the J.F.C.M. court, Taliparamba and that as per Section 151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 cognizance cannot be taken by that court on the basis of the police report. Hence, investigation on its basis will be a futile exercise which will only result in wasting of public money. Thus there is specific legal bar against investigation by the police and prayed to quash the Annexure-A1 F.I.R. and subsequent proceedings. 4) The prayer in this petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the second respondent and has relied on the decision of this Court reported in Paramasivam v. Union of India ( 2007(2) KLT 733) wherein it is held as follows: “The KSEB can file a complaint before the court below based on the facts and materials disclosed by the police report and make a prayer to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner. It will be CRMC431/2006 -3- permissible for any officer of the KSEB who is authorised by it under Rule 12(4) of the Electricity Rules, 2005 to file the complaint. The KSEB being a legal person, even in the absence of Rule 12(4), it may be permissible for it to file a complaint through its authorised officers.” 5) In the present case only the FIR has been lodged and the investigation has not yet started. There is nothing improper on the part of the second respondent who is the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section and the authorised officer referred in Section 151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 to file the FIR against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 135(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 as per Annexure A1. The restriction under Section 151 of the Indian Electricity Act will apply only at the stage of taking cognizance and not at the stage of investigation. The police can exercise all the powers it has under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the offence alleged against the petitioner in this case. The petitioner is bound by law to co-operate with the investigation. CRMC431/2006 -4- 6) Therefore the complaint of the concerned officer authorised under Section 151 of the Act can be forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police. The police will investigate into the offence, collect materials and evidence and forward that complaint to the concerned court, which can take cognizance under Section 151. The restriction under Section 151 of the Act will apply only at the stage of taking cognizance and not at the stage of investigation. Therefore, if the authorised officer of the KSEB files a complaint in the light of the police report filed after investigation, the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE. ks.