Amit Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4192 Jhar

              IN      THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      Cr.M.P. No. 1643 of 2010

              Amit Gupta, son of Late K.P. Gupta, resident of 38, North-West
              Circuit House Area, Road No. 15, Sonari, Jamshedpur,
              Dist.-East Singhbhum.                           .....  ... Petitioner
                                            Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Krishna Kumar Singh, father's name not known to the petitioner,
                 Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Adityapur-2,
                 P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan.
                                                               ..... ...     Opposite Parties
                                         --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

              For the JUVNL              :        Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
                                         ------
14/ 16.11.2021             Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the case was instituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 on the ground that only two seals have been found to be broken. He submits that no case is made out under Clause-15.8 of the Electricity Supply Code (Amendment) Regulations, 2010. According to him, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in (1992) Supl. (1) SCC 335.

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the JUVNL submits that the Regulations have come into effect on 01.09.2010, whereas the case has been instituted against the petitioner on 30.04.2010.

In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in this case.

At this stage, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this criminal miscellaneous petition with the liberty to raise all the points at an appropriate stage.

On this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this criminal miscellaneous petition is permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

The interim order, granted earlier stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-