The applicant sought to quash FIR and charge-sheet alleging electricity theft under the Electricity Act, 2003, claiming lack of connection in his name and absence of public witnesses. The court examined the record and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12550 of 2022
Applicant :- Rishi Chawla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Arun Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicant made prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 152 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 4585 of 2020, under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Anti Power Theft, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that admittedly the electricity connection is not in the name of the applicant and that connection was in the name of Vishal Chawla, who was earlier although made an accused in the FIR, but later on his name was exonerated during investigation and charge-sheet only against the applicant was submitted. He further submitted that applicant is having no concern with the electricity theft, which was alleged to have been done at the time of spot inspection. He further submitted that at the time of inspection, no public witness was taken, therefore, charge-sheet against the applicant is bad.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submitted that there is specific allegation against applicant that he was running a factory with the electricity connection, which was although in the name of Vishal Chawla, but during investigation, his complicity was found false and it was found that applicant was present, who committed theft of electricity from the connection of Vishal Chawla, therefore, charge-sheet submitted against the applicant and there is no illegality in the impugned charge-sheet.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. From the perusal of the FIR and other documents on record collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it reveals that applicant is the person, who runs the factory from the electricity connection, which was in the name of Vishal Chawla and during investigation, it was found that Vishal
Chawla was not involved in commission of theft of electricity and only applicant is liable for commission of theft of electricity. I find no illegality in the impugned charge-sheet as, complicity of the applicant prima facie appears from the FIR as well as from the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, therefore, present application is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.5.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.06.14 10:57:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 are maintainable in view of the allegations of electricity theft.
Whether the charge-sheet submitted against the applicant suffers from any illegality.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rishi Chawla
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
