CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11453 OF 2001 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2.The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dehri-on-sone, Dist.-Rohtas. ……. …….Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Shri Jitendra Narain Singh son of Shri Ram Ashish Singh, Proprietor of Chaturbhuj Stone Company, Amra Talab, resident of village and P.O.-Jamuhar. P.S.-Dehri, Dist.-Rohtas. ……. …….Opp.Parties. ------ For the petitioners: Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh For the State: Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioners-Bihar State Electricity Board and its officials, while exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 6.1.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No.555 of 2000 registered for the offences under sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the prayer made by opposite party no.2, who was accused in Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No.555 of 2000, had directed the Electricity Board for restoring the electric connection of opposite party no.2. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 21.9.2000 on the basis of written report of the Junior Electrical Engineer, Electrical Supply Section, Karwandia a first information report vide Sasaram 2 (M) P.S. Case No.555 of 2000 was registered against the proprietor of M/s Chaturbhuj Stone Company. A raid was conducted in anti theft drive in the premises of M/s Chaturbhuj Stone Company. It was found that electric connection of M/s Chaturbhuj Stone Company was disconnected in the month of May, 1999 due to non-payment of Rs.59,609/-. The said raid was conducted on 21.9.2000. It was found that electric energy was illegally connected by the accused persons from a transformer and due to such illegal extraction of electric energy, the Electricity Board had suffered a loss of Rs.2,70,000/-. After the case was registered, the opposite party no.2 filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Sasaram. The learned Sessions Judge initially directed the opposite party no.2 to deposit Rs.10,000/- in the account of Electricity Board. In the meanwhile, the opposite party no.2 filed a surrender-cum-bail petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasarm. On 18.10.2000 while surrendering it was submitted on behalf of opposite party no.2-accused that a loss of Rs.59,609/- had occurred to the Electricity Board and in compliance with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sasaram he had already deposited Rs.10,000/- and rest amount shall be deposited in installment of Rs.10,000/- within six months. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 was enlarged on bail. After being released on bail and even while an amount of Rs.19,609/- was outstanding, as per the averments made by opposite party no.2, a petition was filed on his behalf for giving direction to Electricity Board for restoring the electric connection and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 3 allowed the petition by its order dated 6.1.2001 and directed the Electricity Board to restore the connection of opposite party no.2 with a condition that he will deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time. 3, Aggrieved with the order dated 6.1.2001, the Electricity Board approached this court by filing the present petition. On 14.12.2001 this court directed for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2. Even after issuance of notice and its service, opposite party no.2 did not appear and, as such, on 27.6.2002 the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application order dated 6.1.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, directing the petitioners to restore the electricity shall remain stayed. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. 4. Mr.Vinay Kriti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the order for direction of restoring electric connection in favour of opposite party no.2 was palpably illegal and wrong and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which is as follows: 24(1).Discontinuance of supply of consumer neglecting to pay charge: Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days’ notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be 4 supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and re-connecting the supply, are paid, but no longer.” 5. While referring the aforesaid provision, it was submitted that in a case of detection of theft of electricity, it is upto the Electricity Board to disconnect the electric supply. It was submitted that after disconnection it will be calculated in accordance with law as to how much loss was suffered and the same amount shall be realized from the consumer and unless the amount is deposited, the connection may not be restored. It was submitted that for the purpose of restoration of connection the learned Magistrate was not having any jurisdiction or authorization to direct the Electricity Board to restore the line while hearing a bail petition. It was submitted that while even granting bail, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to impose conditions beyond the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The direction for restoration of electric supply was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and, as such, the order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. 6. Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has reiterated the views expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. The court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate had committed a serious error while directing the Electricity Board to restore the electric connection. The learned Magistrate completely failed to appreciate 5 Patna High Court The 17th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR that electric supply of opposite party no.2 was disconnected in the month of May, 1999 due to the reason that he had not paid dues of Rs.59,609/- to the electricity Board. The learned Magistrate failed to examine that even though electric supply was disconnected in the year 1999, on a raid conducted by the Electricity Board on 21.9.2000, opposite party no.2 was found committing theft of electricity and due to such action the Electricity Board had suffered a loss of Rs.2,70,000/-. Moreover, power of restoration was within the jurisdiction of the official of the Electricity Board and not with the learned Magistrate while exercising its criminal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court is of the view that the order dated 6.1.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasarm is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. In the result, the order dated 6.1.2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No.555 of 2000 is set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)