IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Anuj Jaiswal & another …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …………Respondents Dated: July 16, 2010 Sri Atul Bansal, Adv. i/b Sri MC Bansal, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the summoning order dated 7.7.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nainital in Special S.T. No.12/2006, UPCL Vs. Anuj Jaiswal & another, u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter to be referred as the Act]. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the respondent no.3-L.M. Pant, Junior Engineer (Vigilance) UPCL, Kumaon Region, Haldwani that on 14.9.2005 at about 2 PM, when he along with the other members of the party reached in the house/shop of the petitioner no.1-Anuj Jaiswal, an Electric Meter of 4 KVV was found installed and by that meter, the petitioner no.2- Mahesh Chand Aggarwal was found committing theft of electricity with the consent of petitioner no.1, and for this act, the petitioners are fully responsible. Further, the electricity connection, installed for the residential purpose, was found being used for the commercial purposes by the petitioner no.2. Further, the seal of the meter was also 2 found broken and tampering in the meter was also found. By this act, the petitioners caused financial loss of Rs.24,648/- to the Electricity Department and thereby they have committed the offence punishable u/s 135 of the Act. On the basis of this complaint filed on 7.2.2006, learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Nainital took cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face trial u/s 135 of the Act vide order dated 7.2.2006. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioners have been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant, it is ample clear that on 14.9.2005, when the house of petitioner no.1 was raided, theft of electricity was found being committed by the petitioner no.2 by putting extra wire, which was with the consent of the petitioner no.1. Even the electricity connection, installed for the residential purpose, was found being used for the commercial purposes by the petitioner no.2. Besides it, the seal of the meter was also found broken and the electric meter was found to be tampered. Therefore, at this stage, I find that the offence punishable u/s 135 of the Act is prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above- said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial and the summoning order is perfectly correct and justified. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or 3 whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 24.05.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 16, 2010 Rdang