Parshotam Lal Gupta vs State And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 267 Del

ORDER

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash FIR No. 278/2000 dated 28th March, 2000, under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the owner of premises No. J-4/63, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Araid was conducted on the said premises on 27.3.2000 and it was found that the petitioner was indulging in abstraction of electricity by unlawful means. Electricity, consumption bill of Rs. 23,505.52 (Rupees twenty three thousand five hundred five and paise fifty two only) was raised by the Delhi Vidyut Board which was paid on 30th March, 2000, within the due date.

3. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to a relief under the Circular dated 16th May, 1996, issued by the D.V.B. qua those cases where payment has been made as per tariff after detection of the illegal abstraction of the electricity within time. He submits that no FIR could be lodged if the amount demanded by the D.V.B. as per tariff was paid before the FIR was instituted.

4. Learned Counsel for D.V.B. submits that D.V.B. is bound by its circulars and its tariff and, therefore, in the event a consumer pays his dues within the stipulated time in accordance with the Circular dated 16th May, 1996, no FIR could be instituted.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before me. I find that Section 39 of the Indian,Electricity Act is a deeming provision which makes theft of electricity an offence under the Indian Penal Code. But for the deeming provision under the Indian Electricity Act in Section 39 ordinarily the offence of illegal abstraction of electricity would not be an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

6. That being the position, it is essential that the complaint on account of illegal abstraction be made by an officer empowered under Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. An officer empowered under the Electricity Act is bound by circulars issued by the .D.V.B. In the present case since Circular dated 16th May, 1996 specifically prohibits the filing of an FIR if the amount raised on account of illegal abstraction of electricity is paid within the stipulated time, no power vested in the officer under Section 50 to lodge an FIR. Any FIR lodged in contravention of circulars of the Board would be without authority as the officer would have no power under Section 50 to make a complaint. In this view of the matter, since the complaint in this case was made without authority vested in the officer under Section 50 and is contrary to the Circular of the Board dated 16th May, 1996, the very genesis of the FIR deeming abstraction of electricity by illegal means an offence under the Penal Code is bad. Consequently, I apply the ratio in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan, lal and Ors., , namely :

"Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of this proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the greivance of the aggrieved party."

And, quash the FIR No. 278/2000 dated 28.3.2000 under Section 39/44, Indian Electricity Act and 379, IPC registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar qua the petitioner-Parshotam Lal Gupta.

Crl. M.(M) 287 of 2002 is allowed.