PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LTD Vs. MADHYA PRADESH PASHCHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in complaint case No.6510/2012 by Special Judge (Electricity Act), Indore. Vide said order the learned Special Judge has rejected the application filed by the present applicants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ' CrPC ').

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant application are that the respondent No.1 prepared a Panchnama dated 22.06.2012 bearing No.435/5 and 436/6 in furtherance to the detection of usage of electricity for the purpose other than for which usage of electricity was authorized. Apart from it the electricity line was moved to supply the electricity to other company carrying out business. Consequently, a memorandum was prepared and assessment in furtherance to the said memorandum was communicated on 23.07.2012 and on the same day the electricity was disconnected. It would also be relevant to mention that as per respondent No.1 the electricity connection was given to Ms. Parental Drug India Limited (for short 'Company A') whereas it was given unauthorizedly to company namely Neptune Packaging (for short 'Company B'). During course of inquiry it was discovered that Company B was carrying its business since the year 1996 and it had no DG set (Generator) in its premises leading to irrefutable inference the electricity line provided by Company A to Company B was without intimation to the respondent No.1, therefore, after serving the assessment order to the Company A and its Director and also to Company B and its Director, the respondent No.1 also proceeded to file a complaint in terms of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'Act of 2003') alleging commission of offence under Section 135 , 136 , 138 and 149 read with Section 150 of the Act of 2003.

(3.) While for the purpose of adjudication of the instant case reference to the litigation carried out with respect to the assessment order may not be relevant but since the grounds has been canvassed on the strength of the order passed by this Court in the said proceedings, a reference to such other cases would be appropriate.