Sri Ansar Basha vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2208 Kant

                                    Crl.P.No.2613/2017
                         1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.2613/2017


BETWEEN:
SRI ANSAR BASHA
S/O. S.DAWOOD
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
IDLOOD ROAD, 1ST CROSS
GANDHINAGAR
SIDDLAGHATTA-562 105                   ... PETITIONER

(BY SMT. THANUJA M.V., ADVOCATE)


AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
POLICE INSPECTOR
BESCOM VIGILANCE
POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 207                ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MADHAV KASHYAP, ADV. FOR
    SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS     AGAINST    THE    PETITIONER   EACC.
NO.55/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA
SITTING AT CHINTAMANI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 135 AND 150 OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.
                                          Crl.P.No.2613/2017
                            2




     THIS  CRIMINAL   PETITION  COMING  ON   FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

"Whether the proceedings in EACC No.55/2016 on

the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkaballapur at Chintamani against the petitioner

amounts to abuse of the process of the Court?" is the

question involved in this case.

2. During the year 2013, the petitioner was

working as Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), BESCOM,

Sidlaghatta Rural Sub-division. On 11.07.2013, the

Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance) filed the

complaint against B.Ramaiah (accused No.1) alleging

that though the temporary electricity meter given to

him for his house at Astegowdanahalli extension had

expired on 08.08.2012, without getting the same

renewed he unauthorizedly tapped the electricity from

the nearby electrical supply line and committed theft of

electricity to the tune of 4946 watts.

                                                  Crl.P.No.2613/2017





     3.    On    the     basis       of   such        complaint,   the

respondent-police      registered         Crime         No.141/2013

against B.Ramaiah for the offence punishable under

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. When the

matter was pending for investigation, the petitioner was

entrusted with the work of assessing the quantum of

electricity so stolen and the value of the same. The

petitioner conducted the spot inspection and submitted

his report as per Annexure-G to the respondent-police

to the effect that as per his assessment, the accused -

B.Ramaiah is liable to pay back billing charge for one

month for the installation ID No.2591345923.

4. Under Annexure-H dated 12.08.2013, the

respondent - police accepted the report of the petitioner

and recommended to the Assistant Executive Engineer,

BESCOM, Sidlaghatta sub-division to accept the report

of the petitioner and reduce the back billing charges.

Accordingly, the Assistant Executive Engineer permitted

accused - B.Ramaiah to compound the offence by

paying back billing charges of Rs.29,949/-, Crl.P.No.2613/2017

compounding charges of Rs.20,000/- etc., in all

amounting to Rs.49,949/-. Accordingly, accused -

B.Ramaiah paid the compounding charges, back billing

charges etc., on 10.09.2013.

5. On 11.02.2016 i.e., about three years after

the compounding, the respondent-police charge sheeted

the petitioner as accused No.2 in the case along with

accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections

135 and 150E of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was

alleged that accused No.1 had committed theft of

Electricity from 08.08.2012 to 11.07.2013, but the

petitioner in collusion with accused No.1 assessed the

back billing charges only for one month. Thereby

committed loss of Rs.3,43,406/- to BESCOM.

6. On receiving such complaint, the trial Court

even without passing an order regarding taking of

cognizance issued non-bailable warrant against the

petitioner and other accused.

Crl.P.No.2613/2017

7. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the

said proceedings on the following grounds:

(i) The alleged act is purportedly done in exercise of

his official duty. The sanction as required under Section

197 of Cr.P.C., is not taken to prosecute the petitioner;

(ii) Under Annexures - G and H, the Assistant

Executive Engineer and respondent - police themselves

accepted the report of the petitioner regarding the back

billing. Later only to harass the petitioner, they falsely

implicated the petitioner in the case; and

(iii) Section 168 bars any suit of prosecution against

the officer or employee of Electricity Department for

anything done in good faith under the Act. Since the

report of the petitioner was accepted by his higher

officer and the respondent, it cannot be said that the act

done by him was not in good faith.

8. Per contra, Sri.Madhav Kashyap, learned

counsel for the respondent submits that Sections 197 of

Cr.P.C., and 168 of Electricity Act, 2003 are applicable Crl.P.No.2613/2017

only to an act done in good faith and in exercise of the

official duty. He submits that something done in

collusion with the co-accused, cannot be said to be an

act done in good faith. Therefore, he submits that

Sections 197 of Cr.P.C., and 168 of the Electricity Act

are not applicable. He contends that whether an act is

done in good faith or in exercise of the official duty is a

matter of trial.

9. It is not disputed that the petitioner was an

officer empowered to assess the back billing charges. It

is also not disputed that the report given by him was

subject to the scrutiny of his higher officer namely

Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Sidlaghatta sub-

division. It is also not disputed that petitioner under

Annexure - F recommended to the Assistant Executive

Engineer for one months back billing. Accepting that

the Assistant Executive Engineer under Annexure-G

recommend to the respondent to act accordingly.

10. Annexure - H is the letter of the respondent

itself to the Assistant Executive Engineer. In that letter Crl.P.No.2613/2017

it is said that the police inspector BESCOM conducted

the re-inspection of the spot and found that the

recommendation of the petitioner to reduce the back

billing charges has merits, therefore, the Assistant

Executive Engineer can take action to reduce the back

billing charges.

11. On the basis of such recommendation,

accused No.1 was permitted to pay the reduced

compounding charges. After three years of all such

events, the respondent comes up with the case that the

petitioner was colluded with accused No.1 and reduced

the back billing charges. The charge sheet does not

contain any other communication made to the Assistant

Executive Engineer in the matter.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment

in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and

others1 has held that if the material produced by the

prosecution itself shows that no offence is made out

against the accused, the High Court can quash the

AIR 1992 SC 604 Crl.P.No.2613/2017

proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This matter

is covered by the said judgment.

13. It is material to note that the

Special/Trial Court without even taking cognizance has

summoned the accused. On that count also the

proceedings are liable to be quashed.

14. Thirdly on collecting the compounding

charges, the Trial Court has closed the case against the

main accused himself. The allegation against the

petitioner is only that he was an abettor. On that count

also the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

15. Further, the material on record clearly

shows that the recommendation of the petitioner was

accepted by the Assistant Executive Engineer. Thus the

act was purportedly done in exercise of his official duty.

Therefore, to prosecute the petitioner the sanction

contemplated under Section 197 was required.

16. Under the circumstances, the impugned

proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of Crl.P.No.2613/2017

the process of the Court. Therefore, the petition is

allowed. The proceedings in EACC No.55/2016 on the

file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkaballapur, sitting at Chintamani against the

petitioner are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KG