Vikas Jaisuka Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2026:JHHC:10745 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4056 of 2018

------

Vikas Jaisuka @ Bikas Jaisuka, aged about 32 years, son of Sri Kedar Nath Agarwal, Resident of: Naya Bazar Road, Jugsalai, P.O. … & P.S: Jugsalai, Dist East Singhbhum. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Sri Namit Kumar, S/o Krishna Mohan Prasad, Electric Supply Sub Division, Adityapur no.2, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Saraikella- Kharsawan. … Opposite Parties

¶8

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Navaniti Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate Mr. Shashi Kant Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

¶9

------ P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. case no. 371 of 2017 registered under sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as also to quash the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cumSpecial Judge, Electricity Cases, Seraikella in Electricity Case No. 85 of 2018 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 371 of 2017 whereby and

¶13

1 Cr. M.P. No. 4056 of 2018

¶14

( 2026:JHHC:10745 )

¶15

where under, cognizance against the petitioner has been taken for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶16

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the M/s Baba Shyam Steel. A raid was conducted in the premises of the M/s Baba Shyam Steel on 24.12.2017 around 10:00 pm to till 3.00 am of 25.12.2017. During the raid, it was found that there was tampering of three out of four seals affixed on the four corners of the LV cover of distribution transformer installed in the premises of the consumer. Out of the four seals, three were found to be duplicate. Further, two numbers of paper seals affixed on the LV Bushing Chamber were found damaged. The bills of consumption of the electrical energy of the previous months of the consumer showed that there was irregularity in consumption of the units of electrical energy consumed by the said unit of the petitioner and the trend of consumption of electricity corroborated with theft of electric energy.

¶17

The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-division Adityapur No.2 lodged a written report basing upon which Adityapur P.S. Case No. 371 of 2017 was registered. Thereafter, Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner, basing upon which cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IIcum-Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Seraikella, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of the judgment.

¶18

2 Cr. M.P. No. 4056 of 2018

¶19

( 2026:JHHC:10745 )

¶20

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that charge has not been framed as yet in this case.

¶21

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the clauses 11.14 and 11.15 of the (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 brought into effect by the Resolution dated 07.09.2015; which has been published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary dated 09.09.2015, which read as under:

¶22

“11.14 After detailed examination of the evidence and the consumption pattern of the consumer, if the Distribution Licensee or supplier is convinced that a prima-facie case is made out for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity dishonestly against the consumer, the Distribution Licensee or supplier shall, within 7 days of inspection, serve a provisional assessment order assessed as per clause 11.24 of these Regulations along with show cause notice to the consumer, giving reasons, as to why a case of theft should not be booked against such consumer giving full details for arriving at such decision and points on which reply has to be submitted. The notice should clearly state the time, date and place at which the reply has to be submitted and the designation of the person to whom it should be addressed.

¶23

11.15 In case a show-cause notice is not served even after 30 days from date of inspection by the Distribution Licensee or supplier, the case of suspected theft shall be considered as dropped and no further action can be initiated against the consumer.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶24

and submits that since this is a case of suspected theft of electricity on the basis of consumption pattern, it was incumbent upon the distribution licensee to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner/consumer, giving reasons as to why the case of theft should not be booked against such consumer, giving full details for arriving at the decision and points on which reply has to be submitted by the petitioner/consumer and since no such show cause notice has been

¶25

3 Cr. M.P. No. 4056 of 2018

¶26

( 2026:JHHC:10745 )

¶27

served upon the petitioner/ consumer even after 30 days from the date of inspection by the distribution licensee from the consumer-who is the petitioner herein, the case of suspected theft shall be considered as dropped and no further action can be taken against the consumer in view of clause 11.15 of the said regulation. It is further submitted that in view of Regulation 11.7 which reads as under:

¶28

“11.7 No case for theft shall be booked only on account of seals on the meter missing or tampered or breakage of glass window, unless corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer and such other evidence as may be available.”

¶29

no case of theft shall be booked only on account of seals on the meter missing or tampered or breakage of glass window, unless corroborated by consumption pattern of the consumer more so, when it is not a case of direct theft of electricity in respect of which provision has been made under clause 11.8 of the said regulation.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hukum Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 128 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that where power is required to be exercised by certain authority in certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden and that it is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided, will be violative of the fundamental

¶31

4 Cr. M.P. No. 4056 of 2018

¶32

( 2026:JHHC:10745 )

¶33

principles of natural justice. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶34

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 fairly submit that no show-cause notice as envisaged under clause 11.14 of the (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 has been issued even though this is a case of suspected theft of electricity based on consumption pattern of the consumer but opposes the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

¶35

Having heard the submissions made in the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that undisputedly this is not a case of direct theft of electricity rather this is a case, where the theft of electricity is suspected on account of seals of the meters being tampered with and the same is corroborated by alleged consumption pattern of the consumer. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, for institution of the case of theft of electricity, the procedure laid down under regulation 11.14 of the Said regulation is a sine qua non and as undisputedly the same has not been complied with in this case, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of the process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. case no. 371 of 2017 as also the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Seraikella in

¶36

5 Cr. M.P. No. 4056 of 2018

¶37

( 2026:JHHC:10745 )

¶38

Electricity Case No. 85 of 2018 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 371 of 2017 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶39

Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. case no. 371 of 2017 as also the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Seraikella in Electricity Case No. 85 of 2018 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 371 of 2017, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner, named above.

¶40

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the said extent.

¶41

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶42

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15^th April, 2026 AFR/ Vedanti

¶43

Uploaded on 22/04/2026

¶44

6 Cr. M.P. No. 4056 of 2018

Vikas Jaisuka v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Jaisuka v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muchi Rai Munda Vs State of Jharkhand

Shankar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Israfil Alias Guddu Alias Mohammad Ishrafil Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Afroz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahraj Ageriya Vs State of Jharkhand