Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
2025:CGHC:24677
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 20 of 2021 1 - Dr. Mon Abrahim S/o P. A. Abrahim Aged About 60 Years Aacharya Medical Superintendent, Christian, Fellowship, Address Chandmari, Near P. T. S. District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Through Assistant Engineer, CSPDCL, (West Zone) Office Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Station House Officer P. S. Golbazar, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri
Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Electricity Act), Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G), in Electricity Case No. 19/2018, whereby charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has been framed against the applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN
2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that at the cost of self-praise, the present applicant submits that he is a well-known and renowned surgeon who has been rendering charitable services to the Christian Fellowship Hospital selflessly. To set the record straight, it is categorically submitted that the said hospital is a non- profitable and charitable institution. Various departments, including the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, recognized the hospital and extended electricity supply at concessional rates, as approved from time to time. Apart from the said reduction of tariff by the electricity board, the charitable institution was also approved under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, and its services to the needy and poor have been duly acknowledged by various departments. In the backdrop of these facts, the applicant proceeds to narrate the sequence of events that led to the filing of a complaint under Section 15 of the Act against him and the consequential framing of charges by the impugned order. On the alleged date of the incident, i.e., 27.07.2018, a surprise inspection was conducted at the premises of the Christian Fellowship Hospital, during which a panchnama was drawn and allegedly served upon a representative of the applicant. It is emphatically submitted that the entire inspection and the consequential panchnama were carried out without adhering to the prescribed procedure and without affording the applicant any opportunity for explanation. Following the inspection, a provisional assessment was made by the concerned officer, raising a demand of Rs. 7,20,857/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Seven only), said to have
3 been done under the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006, for the alleged unauthorized use of electricity as contemplated under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is pertinent to state that the provisional assessment in cases of unauthorized use of electricity is done under the said Rules of 2006 and the Chhattisgarh State Supply Code, 2011, which provide for filing objections before the assessment officer. Accordingly, the applicant filed his objection, and the society also preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority, without appreciating the grounds urged in the appeal, rejected the appeal and upheld the provisional assessment in a most cursory manner. The applicant thereafter approached various forums for effective remedy, but as those forums lacked jurisdiction, he challenged the entire proceedings, including the assessment order, by filing WPC No. 2962/2019 (The Christian Fellowship Hospital v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd.), which is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court, where certain interim protection has also been granted in favour of the applicant. Be that as it may, the respondent company has filed a complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, alleging unauthorized use of electricity against the applicant. 3. After competing the necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and after hearing the parties on framing of charge, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.02.2020 framed the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision.
4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside. He further submits that a bare reading of the complaint allegedly filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, does not disclose any of the essential ingredients constituting the offence of theft of electricity. The allegations pertain only to unauthorized use of electricity, which is dealt with under Section 126 of the Act, and the trial court has failed to distinguish between unauthorized use and theft of electricity. There is no assertion or material in the complaint to justify prosecution under Section 135, nor any basis to hold the applicant vicariously liable for the alleged act of the trust/hospital. The entire proceedings were conducted under Section 126, following the procedure under the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006, and Supply Code, 2011, which provide distinct mechanisms for unauthorized use and theft of electricity. Once proceedings under Section 126 were undertaken and penalty assessed and paid on 03.12.2018, the complainant was precluded from initiating prosecution under Section 135. Moreover, Section 135 requires mens rea, which is absent in this case, as proceedings under Section 126 are civil in nature and do not involve criminal intent. Thus, the prosecution is an afterthought, amounts to abuse of process of law, and deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh K. Pande, learned Deputy A.G. appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned
5 and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prove the charge framed against the applicant. 6. In the matter of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, it has been held that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, the principle is reiterated that at this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and only form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the relevant paras read as under:- “21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled
6 that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. 22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence,
7 is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.” 7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, having perused the material filed by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it cannot be held that the trial Court has wrongly framed the charges as aforementioned against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on record for the ingredients for which, the charge has been framed against the applicant. I do not find any good ground for interference in the order framing charge passed by the trial court. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position noted above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned for framing charges against the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan