Criminal Misc. No. M- 21992 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 21992 of 2008 Date of decision:-01.4.2011 Ram Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Amandeep S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.4. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 32 dated 04.5.2008 under Section 379 IPC and under Section 39 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, registered at Police Station Jorkian, District Mansa (Annexure P-1). As per FIR, on 28.3.2008 petitioner Ram Singh was caught stealing the electricity, due to which he caused financial loss of Rs.38650/- to the Electricity Board and during investigation accused Ram Singh in order to conceal his theft on 7.4.2008 has deposited the whole amount of theft of Rs.38650/- to the Electricity Department and the receipt of the same is attached with the FIR. In this background, the FIR was registered. Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. Criminal Misc. No. M- 21992 of 2008 -2- and others versus State of Haryana and another 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 381 to contend that for an offence of theft, provisions of Section 135 of Electricity Act will apply and the cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Act could be taken only upon a written complaint made by officer authorized. In this case the FIR lodged under Section 379 IPC was quashed. Learned counsel for the State deposed that Rs.38650/- have been imposed upon the petitioner by the Electricity Department towards the alleged loss of electricity and after paying the full amount by the petitioner to the Department, nothing is due to him as on today. After completion of investigations, challan was presented on 11.7.2008 and charges were framed against the petitioner on 4.11.2008. However, he has not disputed the settled proposition of law as set out in the case M/s Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. and others versus State of Haryana and another (supra). Mr. Amandeep S. Sandhu, Advocate counsel for respondent No.4 has stated that the alleged amount of Rs.38650/- has already been paid by the petitioner and has not disputed that under Section 135 of the Electricity Act when the theft of electricity by consumer is found to be committed, the competent/authorized officer shall make complaint to the concerned police station within 24 hours of the offence in compliance of the provisions of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. The Supreme Court in case Avtar Singh versus State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666 was seized of a similar situation. At that time Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in vogue. Section 29 of the said Act was para- materia to Section 135 of the 2003 Act and so was Section 50 of the earlier Act to Section 151 of the new Act. Holding that the object of Section 50 was to prevent prosecution for offences under the 1910 Act being instituted by anyone Criminal Misc. No. M- 21992 of 2008 -3- who chose to do so because the offences could be proved by men possessing special qualifications, it was concluded that the prosecution in respect of that offence would be incompetent unless it was instituted at the instance of a person named in Section 50 of the 1910 Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow :- “We may now refer to certain general considerations also leading to the view which we have taken. First, we find that the heading which governs Sections 39 to 50 of the Act is “Criminal Offences and Procedure”. Obviously, therefore, the legislature thought that Section 39 created an offence. We have also said that Sections 48 and 49 indicate that in the legislature's contemplation Section 39 provided for a punishment. That section must, therefore, also have been intended to create an offence to which the punishment was to attach. The word 'offence' is not defined in the Act. Since for the reasons, earlier mentioned, in the legislature's view Section 39 created an offence, it has to be held that that was one of the offence to which Section 50 was intended to apply. Lastly, it seems to us that the object of Section 50 is to prevent prosecution for offences against the Act being prosecuted by anyone who chooses to do so because the offences can be proved by men possessing special qualifications. That is why it is left only to the authorities concerned with the offence and the persons aggrieved by it to initiate the prosecution. There is no dispute that Section 50 would apply to the offences mentioned in Sections 40 to 47. Now it seems to us that if we are right in our view about the object of Section 50, in principle it would be impossible to make any distinction between Section 39 and any of the Sections from Section 40 to Section 47. Thus, Section 40 makes it an offence to maliciously cause energy to be wasted. If in respect of waste of energy Section 50 is to have application, there is no reason why it should not have been intended to apply to dishonest abstraction of energy made a theft by Section 39, for all these reasons we think Criminal Misc. No. M- 21992 of 2008 -4- that the present is a case of an offence against the Act and the prosecution in respect of that offence would be incompetent unless it was instituted at the instance of a person named in Section 50.” Similar view has been taken by this Court in Jai Jagdembhey Steel Pvt. Ltd. and another versus State of Haryana and others, Crl. Misc. No.10762-M of 2005, decided on 24.5.2006 and in Veer Sagar versus State of Haryana and another, Crl. Revision No.978 of 2006, decided on 14.9.2006. From the latter judgment, relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow :- “In this case, FIR was registered by the police. In this case the Court could not take cognizance except on a complaint. No complaint had been filed as required under Section 151 of the Act. As such, the taking of cognizance by the Court was bad in law.” In view of settled proposition of law, FIR No. 32 dated 04.5.2008 under Section 379 IPC and under Section 39 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, registered at Police Station Jorkian, District Mansa, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. So, ordered. April 01, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE