Ramesh Chandra Jha vs M.P.Madhyakshtra Vidyut Vitran ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5713 MP

                                    1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                       ON THE 10 th OF APRIL, 2023
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 175 of 2009

BETWEEN:-
RAMESH CHANDRA JHA S/O RAMJI LAL , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILL.
MAHROLI, TEH.- SEONDHA, DISTT. DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                                  .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI FAISAL ALI SHAH - ADVOCATE)

AND
M.P. MADHYAKSHTRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMP.LTD.
TH:ITS ASSITANT ENGINEER THARET, DISTT.- DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NAROTTAM SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

      Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.01.2009 passed by Learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge (Electricity Act 2003), Seondha Dist. Datia in Case No.469/2006, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 138(1) of M.P. Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo one year SI with fine of Rs.10,000/- by the trial Court with default stipulation.

In brief, facts of the case are that one Vikram Singh Rajpoot, Assitant Engineer of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Division and found that appellant is

using electricity illegally by way of running Atta Chakki. He was found an electricity connection for which appellant has not paid the bill of Rs. 1,20,062/- due to which on 10.01.2006, his connection was disconnected. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed and thereafter, appellant was convicted aforesaidly.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Bapupuri Vs. Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. reported in 2009 2 MPLJ (Cri) 109. Relevant extract of which are reproduced below:-

"In the instant case, the complainant Junior Engineer Shri D.L. Koshta of M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Gramin Kshetra, Rajgarh (for short, "the Company") had filed the complaint before the trial Court on 23.06.2006. This complaint was filed by filling up the blanks in a printed proforma. In the printed proforma of the complaint in para 1, it is printed that the complainant is authorized by the company, but no authorization letter has been filed along with the complaint and Junior Engineer CW 1 Koshta in his statement on oath in Court has no where stated that he was authorized to file the complaint as per provision under Section 151 of the Act. Learned Special Judge has failed to see the provision of taking cognizance of offence which was his duty to see whether the complaint was filed by an authorized person as per provision' under Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, cognizance of the offence taken by the learned trial Court, itself is illegal and whole trial was without jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to mention here that the contents of the complaint can be used only for contradiction and corroboration of the statement of the complainant given in Court. There is no substantive evidence adduced by the complainant to establish that he was authorized to file the complaint."

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection.

It is stated that procedure has not been followed as per law laid down on the aforesaid judgement. In the instant case, only evidence of Assistant Engineer Vikram Singh Rajpoot has been produced and he has filed complaint before trial Court. The said complaint was filed by filling up the blanks in a

printed proforma and it is printed that the complaint is authorized by the company, but no authorization letter has been filed along with the complaint in his evidence. It is also not disputed that he was authorized to file complaint as per provision of Section 151 of Act, which is mandatory.

After going through the record as well as the judgment of Indore Bench of the High Court, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. In the present case also neither the investigating officer has filed any authorization letter nor stated anything in this regard in his evidence.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and impugned judgment dated 29.01.2009 of trial Court is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid offence and his bail bond stands discharged.

This criminal appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information. Certified copy as per rules/directions.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Vijay VIJAY TRIPATHI 2023.04.12 12:43:20

-07'00'