BINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS of the aforementioned two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications and Criminal Writ application have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Vigilance Police Station Case No. 67 of 2008 (Spl. Case No. 43 of 2008) registered on 16.9.2008 under Sections 166, 109, 119, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution of Vigilance Police Station Case No. 34 of 2009 dated 3.4.2009 (Spl. Case No. 26 of 2009) registered under Sections 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. In Vigilance Police Station Case No. 67 of 2008 M/s. Dadiji Steels Ltd., and its members of the Board of Directors, namely, Binay Kumar Singh, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Vijay Kumar Gupta, Shri Sachint Agrawal, all partners of M/s. Dadiji Steels Ltd., and all persons connected with the management of the company were made accused without specifically naming them.

(2.) IN Vigilance Police Station Case No. 34 of 2009 Shri Swapan Mukherjee, Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, (retired); Shri M.I. Ansari, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Bihar State Electricity Board (retired); Ratneshwar Jha, Retired Electricity Engineer (Commercial), Bihar State Electricity Board; Shri C.N. Prakash, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Supply Region, Patna; Shri R.N. Singh, Superintendent Electrical Engineer, Central Supply Circle, Patna; Shri P.K. Singh, Executive Engineer Electricity (Commercial), Bihar State Electricity Board and 4 members of the Board of Directors of M/S. Dadiji Steels Ltd., namely, Vinay Kumar Singh, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Shri Sachint Agrawal and Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta were also made accused.

(3.) THE fulcrum of the accusation in both the F.I.Rs. is the suspected theft committed by M/s. Dadiji Steels Ltd., and the voluntary declaration accepted by the Electricity Board under Clause 11.4 of the Supply Code 2007 after the inspection of the Vigilance and allowing the consumer to consume the electricity on the same connection for Induction Furnace as well as for Rolling Mill under HTSS-1 Tariff, which is nowhere mentioned in the 2006 Tariff Notification. THE contention of the vigilance is that quashing of F.I.R. is not maintainable under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, moreover, loss was being caused to the Electricity Board by corrupt means, hence with regard to theft of Electricity, the Vigilance is empowered to register the case under memo No. 4119 dated 25 April 1991, whereby the Governor of Bihar authorised Electricity Vigilance Cell to register the case under Electricity Act 1910 in Vigilance Police Station. THE remission under Clause 11.4 under Bihar Electricity Supply Code was not permissible. Moreover, consumer could not have run the Rolling Mill and Induction Furnace under one connection.