TEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 20.06.2009, taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code(for short 'the IPC'), passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Dausa (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 791/2009(55/2009), is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the accused -petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Tej Singh, being a Vigilance Officer -Assistant Engineer of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bandikui, District Dausa lodged an F.I.R. against Non -petitioner No. 3, Gyarsa S/o. Mangi Lal Bairwa(expired during pendency of this revision petition) before Police Station APTPS, District Dausa, DISCOM, Jaipur on 03.02.2007 for offence under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2003') with the contention that the Respondent No. 3, Gyarsa is thefting the electric energy by taking direct cable from LT electric line. On the basis of aforesaid report of the petitioner, An F.I.R. No. 34/2007 came to be registered at Police Station APTPS, District Dausa DISCOM, Jaipur for offence under Section 135 of the Act of 2003 and appointed Respondent No. 2 as Investigating Officer for investigation. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted Final Report No. 92/2008 dated 30.06.2008 before the learned Trial Court with the contention that no sufficient evidence has been found regarding theft of electricity and at the time of checking, the consumer has not produced any bill of electricity connection or any proof in this regard. So, in misunderstanding, VCR has been filled up by the petitioner, which reads as under:

(2.) LEARNED Trial Court, before accepting the FR, issued notice to the petitioner on 29.05.2009 treating that the FIR lodged by the petitioner is false and fabricated. The petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court due to government duty etc. and the learned Trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner under Section 182 of the IPC vide order dated 20.06.2009, which reads as under:

(3.) MR . Nawal Singh Sikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that impugned order passed by the Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and against the material available on record as well as beyond jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the Investigating Officer has submitted Final Report on the basis of insufficient evidence regarding theft of electricity and also stated the reasons thereof in its final report. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly and without jurisdiction taken cognizance against the petitioner and it is settled law that the Court cannot take cognizance without receiving a complaint of facts, which constitute offence as per Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is a government employee and while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court can take cognizance of such offence, except with the previous sanction, but in this case, learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner without previous sanction from the Government. Learned Trial Court is not empowered to take cognizance against the petitioner because the alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions: