Brij Mohan Somani vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1668 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR
                           CRLMC No.3130 of 2013

        Brij Mohan Somani                       ....        Petitioner
                                      Mr. Umesh Ch. Mohanty Advocate


                                     -Versus-


        State of Odisha and Others                 ....   Opposite Parties

                                   Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC, O.P. Nos.1 & 2
                              Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate for O.P. No.3

                  CORAM:
                  JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                 DATE OF JUDGMENT:22.02.2023

      1.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with Special Case No.32(E) of 2011 arising out of Energy P.S. Case No.29 dated 17th May, 2011 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pending in the file of learned Additional District and Special Judge, Balasore on the grounds inter alia that no prima facie case is made out for prosecution and therefore, the same is not tenable in law.

2. In brief, the allegation is that on an inspection dated 10th May, 2011, it was found that the industry, namely, M/s SNM Business Pvt. Ltd. run by the petitioner with the consumer No.L51637 has given extended load of 69 KVA to an under construction oil refinery unit situated just adjacent to it in violation to the provisions of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 (shortly as 'the OERC Code, 2004') for which the FIR was lodged.

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

3. Heard. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State-opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal prosecution under Section 135 of the Act cannot be sustained in law when there has been an assessment under Section 126 thereof. It is contended that the petitioner's unit which is dealing with manufacture and processing of rice, rice bran, oil from cake etc. availed power supply in the year 1999 with a contract demand of 83 KW and was classified by the licensee as a medium industry and on account of expansion/modernization/diversification (EMD) installed additional machineries for the purpose of downstream units like oil mill, solvent plant etc. and the unit as a whole has functioned since then. It is further submitted that initial contract demand of 83 KW was enhanced to 160 KVA in 2001, then to 260 KVA in 2003, 340 KVA with effect from November, 2006 and was classified under large industry category. It is claimed that when the matter for enhancement of contract demand from 340 KVA to 600 KVA was pending with the additional security including processing fee were deposited with the NESCO, the inspection was held on 10th May, 2011 in a manner contrary to the procedure specified in the OERC Code, 2004 leading to a conclusion that the consumer exceeded in utilizing the power beyond the contract demand thereby violating Clauses 34, 104 to 106 of the said Code. According to the petitioner on receiving provisional assessment objection was filed to drop the same since the power under the contract demand was never used for any other purpose save and except for the purpose of

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

expansion of unit within its own premises having one and single service connection meant for a consumer of large industry, however, without considering the objection and appreciating Clause (b) appended to the Explanation of sub- section (6) of Section 126 of the Act in its proper perspective, the final assessment was passed under Section 126(3) thereof which was challenged in appeal under Section 127(1) before the Electrical Inspector (T&D), Balasore in AAC No.01 of 2011 and the said order of the Appellate Authority, at the assessment was interfered with, was questioned by the NESCO in WP(C) No.972 of 2012 which was allowed relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Executive Engineer Vrs. M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill 2012 AIR SCW 616 even when the above decision is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Precisely by taking the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner would finally submit that the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below should be quashed when the petitioner has been assessed under Section 126 of the Act.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 submits that the assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act has been confirmed in W.A. No.267 of 2013 as the appeal filed against the judgment in WP(C) No.972 of 2012 was dismissed and morefully when the petitioner paid the final assessed dues and executed a fresh agreement under Annexuree-5 on 30th May, 2012. It is contended that the proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of the Act are quite distinct and independent and despite the assessment proceeding against the petitioner's industry, there was no bar to initiate a prosecution which is under challenge. While contending so, the decision in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

(supra) is referred to. In other words, according to Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3, for the self-same cause of action, despite an assessment under Section 126 of the Act, a criminal prosecution under Section 135 thereof can be initiated and apart from the above decision, he cited another judgment in the case of Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vrs. Appellate Authority and Another (2018) 3 SCC 608. Mr. Tripathy highlighted upon the scheme of the Act and the provisions of the OERC Code 2004 with reference to Chapter-XII besides Regulations 103 to 105 which are in relation to assignment without permission; re-sale, transfer dishonest abstraction of power and theft of energy. A copy of the judgment in W.A. No.267 of 2013 (M/s SNM Business Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The Executive Engineer and Another) is placed on record by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 along with the excerpts of the provisions of the OERC Code 2004. Mr. Praharaj, learned SC adopted the argument of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 while justifying the continuance of the criminal proceeding notwithstanding final assessment in terms of Section 126 of the Act.

6. By judgment dated 14th September, 2022 in W.A. No.367 of 2013, the challenge of opposite party No.3 in WP(C) No.972 of 2012 was upheld thereby setting aside the decision of the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Inspector (T&D), Balasore, who had overturned the assessment order dated 10th June, 2011. It has been concluded in the aforesaid judgment that there was no concluded contract till it was actually signed on 30th May, 2012 and hence, it could not be said that the contract demand was formally enhanced to 600 KVA and until such time, any excess consumption of

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

electricity contrary to the authorized use would ipso facto attract Section 126 of the Act read with Regulation 106 of the OERC Code.

7. The question is, whether, the criminal prosecution under Section 135 of the Electricity Act can be allowed to survive and would be justified after final assessment in terms of Section 126 thereof was concluded?

8. In this connection, the decision in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) is relevant where in it has been held that upon plain reading of Sections 126 and 135 of the Act, the marked difference is discernible as both operate in distinct fields having no common premises in law; and that Sections 126 and 127 of the Act together constitute a complete Code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under Section 135 which deals with theft of power. If the aforesaid judgment is read, understood and duly appreciated, it would appear that in contradistinction to Section 135 of the Act, Section 126 would be applicable to the cases where there is no theft of electricity but the power has been consumed in violation of the terms and conditions of supply leading to malpractices which may squarely fall within the expression 'unauthorized use of electricity' defined in clause (b) appended to the Explanation of sub-section (6) of Section 126 of the Act. The finer distinction between Sections 126 and 135 of the Act is that in the former, unauthorized use of electricity even in absence of intention invites a civil consequence, whereas, in the latter, dishonest intention with the requisite mens rea is a relevant factor for consideration, since theft of electricity is alleged. If a consumer simply used excessive load over and above the contract demand in

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

violation of the terms and conditions of the supply agreement, the case would fall under Section 126 of the electricity Act but if by any means or method there is abstraction of energy with the ill-intention and without authorization, a criminal action would befall in terms of Section 135 thereof.

9. For proper appreciation of the distinction between Sections 126 and 135 of the Act, the relevant passages of the decision in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) are extracted herein below:

"15. Upon their plain reading, the mark differences in the contents of Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 Act are obvious. They are distinct and different provisions which operate in different fields and have no common premise in law. We have already noticed that Sections 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act read together constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. Section 135 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XIV relating to 'offences and penalties' and title of the Section is 'theft of electricity'. The Section opens with the words 'whoever, dishonestly' does any or all of the acts specified under clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Besides imposition of punishment as specified under these provisions or the proviso thereto, Sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions of the 2003 Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, through officer of rank authorized in this behalf by the appropriate commission, may immediately disconnect the supply of electricity and even take other measures enumerated under Sub-sections (2) to (4) of the said Section. The fine which may be imposed under

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

Section 135 of the 2003 Act is directly proportional to the number of convictions and is also dependent on the extent of load abstracted. In contradistinction to these provisions, Section 126 of the 2003 Act would be applicable to the cases where there is no theft of electricity but the electricity is being consumed in violation of the terms and conditions of supply leading to malpractices which may squarely fall within the expression 'unauthorized use of electricity'. This assessment/proceeding would commence with the inspection of the premises by an assessing officer and recording of a finding that such consumer is indulging in an 'authorized use of electricity'. Then the assessing officer shall provisionally assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such consumer, as well as pass a provisional assessment order in terms of Section 126(2) of the 2003 Act. The officer is also under obligation to serve a notice in terms of Section 126(3) of the 2003 Act upon any such consumer requiring him to file his objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before a final order of assessment is passed within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment. Thereafter, any person served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such assessment and deposit the amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him or prefer an appeal against the resultant final order under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. The order of assessment under Section 126 and the period for which such order would be passed has to be in terms of Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The Explanation to Section 126 is of some significance, which we shall deal with shortly hereinafter. Section 126 of the 2003 Act falls under Chapter XII and relates to investigation and enforcement and empowers the assessing officer to pass an order of assessment.

16. Section 135 of the 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of Criminal Jurisprudence

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. It does not have features or elements which are traceable to the criminal concept of mens rea.

17. Thus, it would be clear that the expression 'unauthorized use of electricity' under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorized use, even in absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be, where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. On the other hand, where a consumer, by any of the means and methods as specified under Sections 135(a) to 135(e) of the 2003 Act, has abstracted energy with dishonest intention and without authorization, like providing for a direct connection bypassing the installed meter. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the cases that would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act on the one hand and Section 135 of the 2003 Act on the other. There is no commonality between them in law. They operate in different and distinct fields. The assessing officer has been vested with the powers to pass provisional and final order of assessment in cases of unauthorized use of electricity and cases of consumption of electricity beyond contracted load will squarely fall under such power. The legislative intention is to cover the cases of malpractices and unauthorized use of electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act.

18. Section 135 of the 2003 Act significantly uses the words 'whoever, dishonestly' does any of the listed actions so as to abstract or consume electricity would be punished in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act. 'Dishonesty' is a state of

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

mind which has to be shown to exist before a person can be punished under the provisions of that Section.

19. The word 'dishonest' in normal parlance means 'wanting in honesty'. A person can be said to have 'dishonest intention' if in taking the property it is his intention to cause gain, by unlawful means, of the property to which the person so gaining is not legally entitled or to cause loss, by wrongful means, of property to which the person so losing is legally entitled. 'Dishonestly' is an expression which has been explained by the Courts in terms of Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as 'whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly'. [The Law Lexicon (2nd Edn. 1997) by P. Ramanatha Aiyar]

20. This Court in the case of Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U.P.[AIR 1966 SC 523] stated that a person who does anything with the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that dishonestly.

21. Collins English Dictionary explains the word 'dishonest' as not honest or fair; deceiving or fraudulent. Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) explains the expression 'dishonest act' as a fraudulent act, 'fraudulent act' being a conduct involving bad faith, dishonesty, a lack of integrity or moral turpitude.

22. All these explanations clearly show that dishonesty is a state of mind where a person does an act with an intent to deceive the other, acts fraudulently and with a deceptive mind, to cause wrongful loss to the other. The act has to be of the type stated under Sub-sections (1)(a) to (1)(e) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act. If these acts are committed and that state of mind, mens rea, exists, the person shall be liable to punishment and payment of penalty as contemplated under the provisions of the 2003 Act. In contradistinction to this, the intention is not the foundation for invoking

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

powers of the competent authority and passing of an order of assessment under Section 126 of the 2003 Act."

10. It is contended on behalf of opposite party No.3 that there is no bar for simultaneous proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of the Act provided a case is made out for both and while stating so, referred to the authority of the Apex Court in Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (supra), wherein, it has been held and observed as under:

"18. In the scheme of the Act, we find that Section 126 of the Act deals with assessment of electricity charges payable by such person (consumer) for unauthorized use of electricity whereas Section 135 deals with the cases of theft of electricity.

19. In other words, once the Board detects the case of unauthorized use of electricity by any consumer, in such event, the Board gets a cause of action to proceed against such person/consumer under Section 126 or/and 135 under the Act. Both Sections 126 and 135 are independent in all respects and provide different kind of liability and consequences. One involves monetary liability (Section 126) whereas the other involves criminal liability (Section

135).

20. The Board is, therefore, at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Section 126 or/and 135 of the Act against such person/consumer as provided therein in accordance with law."

There is no quarrel over the legal position that the civil liability and penal consequence exist independently and are exclusive of each other. An act with or without intent may carry a civil liability but when such is also treated as an offence and defined accordingly, the conduct and mens rea plays a pivotal role. In the case at hand, if knowing well excess power is consumed, it would be an instance of

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

'unauthorized use' but when the conduct reveals otherwise and not merely extraction rather its stealing by whatever means, the act becomes a mischief and has to be held as a theft punishable under Section 135 of the Act, whereas, the former is only visited with a civil consequence. The clear and demarcated distinction between the aforesaid provisions is to be realized which is what has been lucidly explained in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra).

11. As pleaded by the petitioner, the drawal of excess load by the petitioner's company above the contract demand would be permissible under law and cannot be said to be unauthorized use/consumption within the meaning of Section 126 of the Act read with the provisions of the OERC Code, 2004 more particularly when application for enhancement of contract demand was under process and pending with the NESCO. However, such a pleading has lost its relevance, as in the meantime, the assessment which was overruled in appeal and confirmed in WP(C) No.972 of 2012 stood finally affirmed in W.A. No.267 of 2013.

12. Now the consideration would be, whether, the petitioner can still be proceeded with for an offence under section 135 of the Act, which according to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for him is not permissible with the argument that for such unauthorized use of power for which assessment was made under Section 126 thereof leaves no room for any prosecution. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3, however, submits that the manner in which the load was diverted and power was extracted, it amounted to an act of theft punishable under Section 135 of the Act. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner first of all cited a decision of this Court in Sambit Kumar Vrs. State of Odisha

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

MANU/OR/0114/2022 to submit that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to commit such an offence. Furthermore, the decision in Rishipal Singh Vrs. State of U.P. and Another AIR 2014 SC 2567 is placed reliance on by Mr. Mohanty by contending that even if the uncontroverted allegations as appearing in the FIR are taken at its face value, the same do not disclose commission of an offence of theft. Law is well settled that if on a bare perusal of FIR of complaint, if no prima facie case is made out; or it disclosed any cognizable offence to have been committed, a criminal proceeding may be quashed in exercise of the Court's extra- ordinary jurisdiction as enunciated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.The decision in Chandran Ratnaswami Vrs. K.C. Palanisamy and others (2013)6 SCC 740 relied upon by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the legal position as encapsulated in Ch. Bhajan Lal case with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. If any of the condition(s) as illustrated in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) is/are fulfilled, in such a situation, inherent jurisdiction may have to be exercised in order to do complete justice and also to prevent abuse of process of law.

13. An assessment was made vis-à-vis the petitioner which was finally sustained by this Court in W.A. No.267 of 2013. Referring to such an action, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a case of civil liability and hence the petitioner cannot and could not have been subjected to criminal prosecution. It is restated that a civil liability and criminal prosecution can go together if a case is made out. In other words, if the facts do reveal

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

commission of an offence independent of any civil consequence, the criminal prosecution would lie. The allegation in the FIR is that power was consumed unauthorizedly and for the said purpose, electricity connection was supplied to an under construction refinery unit situated at a distance of 200 Metres approximately from the existing business premises thereby the consumer has given extended load violating the OERC Code, 2004. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 refers to clauses 104, 105 and 106 of the OERC Code, 2004 to satisfy the Court that the petitioner unauthorizedly diverted power to another unit in contravention to the contract which tantamount to theft of energy punishable under Section 135 of the Act. It is further submitted that necessary seizure was made with respect to welding and drill machines and cable, etc. used in supplying power to the under construction refinery unit custody of which under a zima was refused by the petitioner. Admittedly, request of the petitioner for enhancement of the load was pending consideration which is in respect of the industry but electricity connection was alleged to be supplied to a unit situated adjoining to it. For the excess load use without the approval has been duly assessed in a proceeding under Section 126 of the Act but at the same time when the mischief was detected as the power was diverted to another unit, prosecution under Section 135 of the Act was initiated against the petitioner. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no diversion and it is a case of use of excess load and the electricity was consumed by the business unit for which the assessment under Section 126 of the Act has already been over. In other words, it is claimed that the alleged under construction unit is no separate establishment and it was within the business

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

premises to which the power was supplied and for such unauthorized use, assessment under Section 126 of the Act was made and realized and hence, it is no case of theft. In order to understand the course of action adopted while taking action to realize the dues for use of excess power, it would be apposite to reproduce the related provision of Section 126 of the Act which is extracted below:

"(1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.

(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.

(4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him:

(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.

(6) xxx xxx

Explanation-For the purposes of this section:

(a) xxx xxx

(b) "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity-(i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised." (Emphasis in italics is by the Court)

The above provision deals with provisional assessment applying the rule of best judgment and realization of additional electricity charges on account of unauthorized use of power. In particular, if Clause (b) to Explanation of sub- section (6) of Section 126 of the Act is read at in juxtaposition to Section 135 thereof, it would appear that simultaneous actions may follow suit for the mischiefs some of which are identical in nature, however, the distinction lies in dishonest intention distinguishable from unauthorized use of power. In the case at hand, it is made to suggest that by unauthorized means, there was extended supply of power to an under construction unit which was detected during inspection. So to say, the petitioner is alleged of utilizing and extending power to an adjoining unit without any authority. The background facts are to be refreshed to understand if at all the action of the petitioner resulted in the commission of theft of power.

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

The industry was a small scale unit initially and slowly upgraded itself to a large scale establishment which was accomplished with EMD and for that the contract demand was enhanced from time to time. Indisputably, a request was received for enhancement of contract demand and execution of a fresh contract in that regard and the licensee was in seisin over the matter at the relevant point of time when the inspection was conducted. Admittedly, no action, such as, disconnection in the power supply to the unit was taken which is normally carried out in case of theft. It rather appears that the supply was extended to a downstream refinery unit which was under construction and in that connection, the machines, cable etc. were found at the spot and led to its seizure. In anticipation of the approval of the contract demand though a formal agreement was to be signed between the parties, the excess load was consumed unauthorizedly and in that respect, additional bill was raised for the period in question, a dispute which was assailed and was finally put to rest in W.A. No.267 of 2013. According to the Court, it is outrightly a case of unauthorized use of electricity by the consumer without any dishonest intention to steal power which is sine qua non to initiate a prosecution under Section 135 of the Act. By the nature of the conduct of the petitioner and being a consumer can be said to have overused power than the limit he was eligible and entitled to extending it to a downstream under construction unit for which additional demand was raised at a time when enhancement in load and a decision thereon by the licensee was still subjudice. Any activities for and in relation with or connected to the main industry and unauthorised use of electricity by a consumer for the said purpose would invite civil consequence in absence of any dishonest intention as in

Brij Mohan Somani Vrs. State of Odisha and Others

the present case where the power was extended to an under construction downstream unit. So, therefore, to say that the act amounts to theft of power and does fall within the mischief of Section 135 of the Act would be stretching things too far when it would be a case of unauthorized use of electricity simpliciter which ought to have culminated with the realization of the extra-demand. The Court is reminded of the clear intendment of the law as expounded in Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) and hence arrives at a conclusion that the criminal prosecution vis-à-vis the petitioner is unjustified and untenable in law and its continuance would be an abuse of process of court.

14. Accordingly, it is ordered.

15. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. As a logical sequitur, the criminal proceeding in connection with Special Case No.32(E) of 2011 arising out of Energy P.S. Case No.29 dated 17th May, 2011 pending in the court of learned Additional District and Special Judge, Balasore is hereby quashed for the reasons discussed herein before.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

TUDU