BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD Vs. ISHWAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) for quashing/setting aside of the show cause notice issued by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Electricity courts, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 375/2007 on the ground that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions contained under Section 344 of the Cr. P. C. It has been submitted that a notice under Section 344 can only be issued by the learned Judge only when the judgment of final order has been passed in the proceedings subject matter of issuance of such notice. It is stated that in this case at the time when the aforesaid notice was issued no such judgment much less any final order has been passed and that the instant criminal case is still at the stage of summoning of the evidence and therefore, the show cause notice under Section 344 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. It has been submitted that in the instant case, the statutory inspection team conducted a raid on the premises of the accused persons on 16. 02. 2005 and detected theft of electricity. Accordingly, a supplementary theft bill of Rs. 1,80,485/- dated 22. 02. 2005 was raised and which was unpaid by the respondents and hence the petitioner company filed C. C. No. 375/2007 in the Special Electricity Court at Malviya Nagar. In the said Criminal Complaint, Shri Ishwar Chand was arrayed as accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 Mangli Ram, who was the Registered Consumer of the Electricity connection at the said premises was arrayed as accused No. 2. The accused No. 1, sh. Ishwar Chand was sought to be tried for the offence of theft of electricity and the accused No. 2 was sought to be tried for offence u/s 150 of the electricity Act, 2003, i. e. , abetment in his capacity as the registered consumer.

(2.) IT is also the case of the petitioners that the members of the statutory inspection team under a bona fide plea and on the basis of inquiry conducted at site believed that respondent No. 2 was the registered consumer of the said premises where theft of electricity was being committed.

(3.) IT is also submitted that summons were issued to the accused persons on the complaint filed by the petitioner No. 1 and the case was fixed on 17. 07. 2008 for appearance of the accused, on which date respondent No. 1 appeared in Court and informed that respondent No. 2, his father had died long time ago. The petitioner company just like everybody else came to know for the first time that respondent No. 2 has deceased and prayed for aborting the complaint qua the deceased. It is alleged that, in fact, it was statutory duty of the respondent no. 1 in accordance with the Regulation 7 of DRC Regulations of 2002 to have informed the complainant about the death of the registered complainant and to have got the connection transferred in his name which was not done and for the aforesaid fault of respondent No. 1 the petitioner could not have been punished.