PITAMBER SINGH JOLLY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a citizen under the garb of technicalities of law can knock the door of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and when his intentions are quite clear that he wants to hoodwink the law.

(2.) BEFORE I proceed further I may state at the very outset that Smt. Harjinder Kaur is the correct name of the wife of Pitamber Singh Jolly, present petitioner. Earlier unfortunately for some clerical mistake the challan was presented against Harjinder Singh but it was required to be sent against Smt. Harjinder Kaur. Making huge capital of that omission on the part of the State, Smt. Harjinder Kaur took the benefit of the challan and attacked it by stating that the case was in fact filed against one Harjinder Singh and alleged occurrence as relied upon by the prosecution took place on 10.10.1991 and no occurrence took place on 9.10.1991. Therefore, the proceedings against her was nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Benefit of omission on the part of State was granted to Smt. Harjinder Kaur. Encouraged by that omission on the part of the prosecution Agency Petamber Singh Jolly this time has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of FIR No. 268 dated 16.10.1991 Police Station, Panchkula under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

(3.) THE major steps taken by the petitioner in the present petition are that no occurrence had taken place on 9.10.1991 and that the prosecution cannot be permitted to change the occurrence from 9.10.1991 to 10.10.1991. Secondly prosecution cannot be launched against him without complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act and that the mandatory provisions as required to be performed by the Board i.e. Haryana State Electricity Board had not been complied with as a result of which the present prosecution is also barred under Section 39 of the said Act. The defence of the State stands depicted when it has been categorically stated in the reply that at the time of committing of theft of energy the petitioner was present in the Printing Press owned by his wife as per the statements of the witnesses. At the time of raid his wife went upstairs after noticing the raiding party and the present petitioner remained present on the spot. Further it has been stated by the respondent that it is not necessary to be a consumer for the purpose of committing theft. The petitioner was found present in the Printing Press at the time of committing theft of electricity. Electricity was given to the Printing Press which was owned by his wife Harjinder Kaur. Further in para No. 16 of the written statement a categorical stand has been taken up by the respondent that the petitioner was caught red-handed while committing the theft of electricity by the raiding party. He also put his initials on the documents of the raiding party. This fact is clear from the statement of PW Sanjiv Kumar Junior Engineer and Surinder Mohan SSC. These witnesses have stated that the petitioner was found present at the time of raid in the Printing Press located in House No. 1031, Sector-10, Panchkula. The said factory was in the name of the wife of petitioner. So, FIR was lodged only against Pitamber Singh as well as Harjinder Kaur because the offence was being committed in conspiracy by both of them.