Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Aashish Sahrawat
2011 Latest Caselaw 469 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Judgment delivered on: January 27, 2011

+      CRL.M.C. NO. 1906/2008

       BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.             ....PETITIONER
                   Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate with
                            Mr. Deepak Pathak, Advocate.

                       Versus

       AASHISH SAHRAWAT                            ....RESPONDENT

Through: Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Advocate Proxy for Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, the petitioner herein vide this

petition has pressed for following prayer:

"(i) allow the instant petition and quash/set aside/vary/modify the last para of the order dated 7 th May, 2008 in criminal complaint Case No. 223 of 2007 passed by Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and;

(ii) to pass/make any other such other appropriate orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are

that the petitioner company is a licensed power supply company.

On 08th April, 2005, a statutory inspection/raid was conducted by the

officials of BSES at Flat No. 2423, D II, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The

premises was found occupied by the respondent Aashish Sahrawat

and one P.N.Puri, who was declared proclaimed offender as he failed

to put in appearance in the court. The inspection team detected

theft/unauthorized use of electricity in the said premises.

Accordingly, a supplementary theft bill for ` 2,51,027/- was raised.

Respondent herein and P.N.Puri failed to pay the amount of

supplementary bill. The petitioner No. 1 was thus constrained to file

complaint case No. 223/2007 in the Special Electricity Court, Malviya

Nagar under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned Trial Judge

took cognizance of the complaint and adopted summary trial

procedure.

3. During the pendency of trial, the respondent approached the

petitioner company for settlement/compromise and the petitioner

company, as an act of good faith, considered the request of the

respondent and after discussion, reduced the theft bill amount and

allowed the respondent to pay that amount in instalments. The

factum of this proposed settlement was brought to the notice of

learned Trial Judge on the next date of hearing and on the payment

of the last instalment, the petitioner intimated the court that it was

not interested in proceeding with the complaint and prayed for

dismissal of the complaint as compromised.

4. It appears that learned Trial Judge took offence to out of court

settlement done by the petitioner with the accused during the

pendency of complaint. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while

directing the respondent/accused to deposit ` 45,000/- on the next

date of hearing so that the case could be closed, inter alia, observed

thus:

"Order be given dasti of which copy be also sent to the CEO in confidential for his information and direction not to interfere in the Court of justice after filing of the complaint by dealing with the subject matter of the complaint in the manner as discussed above. Accordingly, put up on 9.5.208 for further orders".

Petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid observation of the court and

sending of a confidential direction to CEO of the company.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner company has submitted that

the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner

company is a private sector organization in the business of supply of

electricity and its prime concern is to generate profits. The main

concern of the petitioner company in power theft cases is to ensure

that the revenue in respect of the power theft is recovered as early

as possible, therefore, the petitioner company is well within its rights

to settle the bills raised in respect of power theft even during the

pendency of the complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

Learned counsel contended that the learned Additional Sessions, if

he was of the view that the offence under Section 135 Electricity Act

is not compoundable, could have rejected the request of the

petitioner company for withdrawal of the complaint but the Trial

Court had no jurisdiction to restrain the petitioner company from

settling the bill amounts after initiating the prosecution of the

accused under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

6. I find merit in the above submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner. The object of Section 135 of the Electricity Act is to deter

the theft of electricity but at the same time, one cannot ignore that

the petitioner company, who is in the business of supply of

electricity, has a legal right to recover the revenue in respect of the

power theft by raising bill or even by encouraging settlement. Such

an act on the part of the petitioner company, by no stretch of

imagination, can be termed as interference in the judicial

proceedings even if complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity

Act is pending. Thus, in my view, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Special Electricity Court had no jurisdiction to send a

communication to the CEO of the petitioner company directing the

petitioner to refrain from settling the matter after filing of the

complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned

Additional Sessions Judge also seems to have lost sight of the fact

that he was exercising criminal jurisdiction under the Code of

Criminal Procedure and not a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India where he could issue such directions or

orders. An Additional Sessions Judge presides over a particular

jurisdiction and he is bound by rules of procedure and he cannot

overstep into the areas which have no concern with the jurisdiction

being exercised by him. If, on hearing the parties, the Judge was of

the view that there was no justification in prayer for withdrawal of

the complaint, he should have rejected request of the petitioner

instead of issuing directions to the CEO.

7. In view of the aforesaid, I find it difficult to sustain the

impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special

Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar dated 07 th May, 2008. The order is

accordingly quashed.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE

JANUARY 27, 2011 akb