JABIR HOSSAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Cr. PC prayer is made for quashing of a chargesheet being chargesheet No. 12 of 2004 dated 28. 02. 2004 arising out of Falakata ps Case No. 91 of 2003 dated 26. 11. 2003 under section 135 of the Indian electricity Act read with section 379 of the IPC pending before learned additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Electricity Act), Jalpaiguri. Also is challenged the order dated 30. 08. 2005 passed by the said learned Judge issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

(2.) ASSISTANT Engineer, WBSEB lodged an FIR with the OC Falakata PS on 26. 11. 2003 against this petitioner alleging that he had been to the premises of the petitioner situated at Uttar Deogaon, Jateswar, Dist-Jalpaiguri accompanied by the officials of the WBSEB, conducted inspection of the premises and found the petitioner dishonestly tapping the overhead services facility of WBSEB for running a Husking Mill of 10 H. P. Seizure was made of 1993 meter P. V. C. wire (approximate) of aluminium making on the day of inspection from the premises. The police submitted chargesheet against the petitioner under section 135 of the Indian Electricity act read with section 379 of the IPC.

(3.) IT has been contended in the revisional application that sometime in the year of 1996 the petitioner applied for new electricity connection (industrial) and deposited the quotation amount of Rs. 13,230/ -. On November 25, 2003 the officials of WBSEB visited the premises and then after sometime the authorities issued a provisional bill for Rs. 1,25,904/- said to be due because of alleged tapping and using unauthorized electricity connection. The petitioner made a complaint before the Ombudsman under the West bengal Electricity Act and the Ombudsman asked for a report and then passed an order partially in favour of the petitioner. The WBSEB preferred an appeal against the order of Ombudsman before the West Bengal electricity Regulatory Commission and hearing. took place on 02. 05. 2005. The said Commission passed an order to the effect that the WBSEB would dispose of the complaint of the present petitioner appropriately in terms of its general conditions of supply and refund the same already taken from the petitioner, and if the petitioner would prefer to apply afresh then the WBSEB would deal with the application promptly under the Act. There was no whisper of any criminal proceeding. When the police came to the place of the petitioner he came to know that a criminal case had been registered against him and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court ). Jalpaiguri issued warrant of arrest after the police submitted chargesheet against him. It has been contended in the revisional application that the chargesheet was mechanically submitted without application of mind, that the FIR was vague and ambiguous and does not reveal the quantum of loss suffered by the WBSEB, not does it indicate the total kilowatt of electrical energy allegedly stolen and no source has been specified wherefrom the petition had been allegedly tapping the line for dishonest abstraction of electricity energy. No ingredient of offence under section 379 of the IPC was there. The entire FIR and the chargesheet should be quashed for ends of justice. Petitioner is entitled to get the refund of certain sum of money and he has been exonerated of all the charges levelled against him.