BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD Vs. SHIV LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this common order Criminal Appeal Nos. 500/2008, 501/2008, 512/2008 and 612/2008 are being disposed of.

(2.) THE aforesaid appeals have been filed by the company M/s. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. under Section 341 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 28/05/2008 in Crl. A No. 500/2008; order dated 28/05/2008 in Crl. A No. 501/2008; order dated 31/05/2008 in Crl. A No. 512/2008 and order dated 14/07/2008 in Crl. A No. 612/2008 passed by the court of Sh. D.C. Anand, Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, whereby the Ld. Trial Court made a complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC read with Section 340 CrPC for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC before the Court of ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against the appellants, herein, which order, as per the appellants is wholly unjustified and unwarranted both in law as well as facts applicable to the instant case.

(3.) MR . Ashok Bhasin, Senior Advocate with Sunil Fernandes, counsel for the petitioners raised the contention that the trial court committed a grave error in issuing a show cause notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the dictum of Supreme Court reported in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 1367 and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 178 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 581 : (2005)4 SCC 370. The counsel also contended that the trial court failed to appreciate that it is a well settled law that before resorting to the provisions of Section 340 CrPC the court must be satisfied that it appears that an offence under Section 195(1)(b) has been committed and it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry be made, but contrary to this, the learned trial court mechanically and without application of mind initiated proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erred in initiating suo motu proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the respondents herein without there being a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel urged that the tribunal failed to appreciate that Section 340 does not give inherent powers to the Court and only in a glaring case of deliberate falsehood or abuse of administration of justice, the proceedings under Section 340 CrPC can be initiated by the Court suo motu. The counsel also averred that the tribunal erred in not appreciating that it is the responsibility of the survivors/legal heirs of the deceased to bring the fact of demise of the registered consumer to the knowledge of the appellant no.1 company and change in the name of the registered consumer in the record of the company and since no application under Reg. 7 of Delhi Regulatory Commission (Performance standards, Metering and Billing Regulation), 2002 was made by the respondent and even on the date of filing of the complaint the appellant no. 1 company had no knowledge of demise of the respondent, thus, as per the records of the complainant a prima facie case was made out against the respondent and under this bonafide belief the complaint cases were registered against the respective respondents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erred in not comprehending that it was due to some unscrupulous people who were present at the time of inspection, the appellant no. 1 company was misled and also it failed to appreciate that at the time of filing affidavits they did not have the knowledge of death of the registered consumer and also, no conceivable gain would accrue to the appellants by filing false affidavits against a dead man, therefore, proceedings under Sections 191 and 192 IPC against the appellants are not attracted, thus the trial court erred in making complaint of perjury against the appellants.