(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the Petitioners assailing the order dtd. 27/11/2015 and the order dtd. 18/12/2015 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Electricity Criminal Case No. 67 of 2012, whereby the Court below has rejected the application under Sec. 239/245 of CrPC for discharge of the Petitioners from the offence charged.
(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the present Petitioners have been prosecuted vide Crime No. 168 of 2010, dtd. 29/7/2010, for the offence under Ss. 420, 409/34 of IPC and also under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act. The charges in the instant case were framed as early as on 10/9/2013 and the matter thereafter was proceeded for the evidence of the prosecution. On 27/11/2015 in the midst of the hearing, an application under Sec. 239/245 of CrPC was filed seeking for discharge of the Petitioners from the offence under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act. According to the Petitioners, from the contents which have been brought on record and also the evidences which have been recorded till then, the ingredient required for the making of the offence under Sec. 135 of the Electricity Act is not made out and that has prompted them to move the said application for discharge from the offence. The said application was rejected with cost of Rs.1000.00, on 27/11/2015 by the Court below. The ground for rejection of the said application by the Court below was the fact that, the stage of moving an application under Sec. 239/245 of CrPC had already been over as it should have been filed at the time of framing of charge or before that, and that subsequently when the matter was also fixed for evidence and more than a couple of witnesses also having been examined it was not proper for the Petitioners to have moved such application, and therefore the same was rejected.
(3.) Immediately, on the very next date, i.e., on 28/11/2015, another application was filed by the Petitioners for review of the order dtd. 27/11/2015, alleging that the order dtd. 27/11/2015 has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners side and that the Counsel for the Petitioners had waited in the Court since the morning till 5:00pm and without hearing his arguments the Court below has in a mechanical manner without application of mind rejected the application and has also imposed cost, and thus they have sought for the review of the said application. The Court below again, hearing the review application vide its order dtd. 18/12/2015 rejected the same and has further imposed a cost of Rs.4000.00 while rejecting the said review application. While rejecting the said application also, the Court below gave the reasoning that it is not a case where the Petitioners were not heard and that both the parties to the dispute were heard and the matter was fixed for orders at 5:00pm and the Counsel for the Petitioners had put in his appearance and also taken down the next date of hearing and thus since there was no strong case made out for recalling of the order dtd. 27/11/2015, the said review application was rejected. It is these two orders, dtd. 27/11/2015 and 18/12/2015, which are under challenge in the present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC.