Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Another vs The State of Bihar and Another

Anwar Ahmad, J.—A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and the same is placed on the record. This is an application filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 9th January, 2007 passed in Cr. Revision No. 698 of 2005 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, dismissing the revision and also for quashing the order dated 26th August, 2005 passed by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City, rejecting the petition of discharge of the petitioners.

Assistant Electrical Engineer alongwith Magistrate, Police Party and other officials conducted a raid in Mohalla-Shivpur Tikia Toli, Mussalehpur for checking theft of electric energy. During the course of raid he found five persons including the petitioners committing theft of electric energy. He found petitioner Sanjay Kumar Yadav committing theft of electric energy by fixing a Toka in the main line to his lodge situated in Mohalla-Shivpur Tikia Toli, Mussalehpur causing a loss of Rs. 42,000/- to the Electricity Board. He seized the electric wire. Similarly he found petitioner Kitab Lai Yadav committing theft of electric energy by fixing a Toka in the main line to his lodge causing a loss of Rs. 1,00,500/- to the Electricity Department. He seized the electric wire. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 39/40 of the Electricity Act.

The learned lawyer for the petitioners submits that petitioners deposited the alleged amount of loss caused to the Electricity Board. He submits that thereafter they filed a petition to the Electrical Executive Engineer for compounding of the case u/s 152(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thereupon, the Electrical Executive Engineer sent a reply vide Annexure-3 that the amount of loss stands deposited under instalment with a copy of that letter to the Magistrate Sanjay Yadav for discharging the accused. He, therefore, submits that petitioners have deposited the amount of loss alleged to have been caused to the Electricity Board and hence in terms of Section 152(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the offence stands compounded with the acceptance of the amount deposited. He submits that the Electrical Executive Engineer has requested the Magistrate for discharging the accused. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed. In support of his contention he referred to two decisions in the case of Binod Giri Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, and also in the case of Shobhit Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . He submits that in the case of similar nature this Court has been pleased to quash the order and discharge the accused.

Considered the submissions made by the learned lawyer for the petitioners and the aforesaid referred decisions. I am of the view that the miscellaneous case is fit to be allowed. In the result, the miscellaneous case is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.