Case Law Details
Ravindra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh high Court)
The general rule of criminal justice is that ‘a crime never dies’. The principle is reflected in the well-known maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against offenders). The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there are express and specific provisions to that effect, for instance. Article 114, 115, 131 and 132 of the Act. It is settled law that a criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay in approaching a court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict.
It is a matter of evidence before the trial Court whether written complaint was lodged after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity and it is the duty of the court to take cognizance according to Sections 151, 151A & 151B of the Electricity Act. It is not mandatory as there is no any specific bar that if complaint is filed after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricy Act cannot be taken.
On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act based on the material placed before it against the applicant as the same are prima facie sufficient to make out a case against him under the said section.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.04.2011 framing charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Special Case No. 124/2010. By this revision petition, the revisionist/applicant is seeking quashment/setting aside the order framing charge dated 28.04.2011 and discharging the applicant from the offence.
2. Facts of the case in brief is that the Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) received a postal-report on 06.04.2010 sent by Prakash Kumar, Assistant Engineer, posted at Electricity Office Patan to the effect that on 17.03.2010, he alongwith 5-6 staff members and Vigilance Department raided at brick-kiln of the applicant situated at Thakurain Tola under the jurisdiction and found that the applicant had committing theft of electricity to run his brick-kiln by tapping of electricity illegally. Thereafter, inquest report, spot inspection report and Panchnama were prepared and articles were seized. Written complaint was made to the concerned police station by Prakash Kumar Agrawal on 20.03.2010 by registered AD. Thereafter, the concerned Police Station Patan lodged the F.I.R. under Section 135 of the Electricity Act under Crime No. 46/2010 against the applicant on 06.04.2010.
3. During the course of investigation, all the documents panchnama, seizure and other documents were seized by the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has framed the charge against the applicant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act which was denied by him and he prayed for trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2003, it mentioned that provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hour from the time of such disconnect. In the present case, the offence was committed on 17.03.2010 and written complaint was sent by the concerned Electricity Officer on 20.03.2010, therefore, the mandatory proviso was not complied with and the cognizance taken by the trial Court is wrong and incorrect, therefore, applicant be discharged from the offence. He also submitted that as per seizure memo and material collected, no offence is made against the applicant and the charge framed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law, the same is liable to be set aside and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the charge.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the contention made by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that within the twenty four hour of disconnection of the electricity the complaint is to be lodged, this issue was not raised by the applicant at the time of framing of charge and it has been raised for the first time only after commencement the trial when number of witnesses were examined. Further there is no any fact mentioned by the applicant as to when illegal electricity of the applicant was disconnected.
8. The offence is cognizable and non-bailable as per proviso of the Electricity Act, 2003 and there is no any bar, if the report is lodged after twenty four hour, it cannot be taken of cognizance by concerned judge. The offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is triable by Special Judge punishable with maximum jail sentence of three years. There is no material before this Court or before the trial Court to show that the complaint in writing was not made within twenty four hour from time of such disconnect.
9. The general rule of criminal justice is that “a crime never dies”. The principle is reflected in the well-known maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against offenders). The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there are express and specific provisions to that effect, for instance. Article 114, 115, 131 and 132 of the Act. It is settled law that a criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay in approaching a court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict.
10. It is a matter of evidence before the trial Court whether written complaint was lodged after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity and it is the duty of the court to take cognizance according to Sections 151, 151A & 151B of the Electricity Act. It is not mandatory as there is no any specific bar that if complaint is filed after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricy Act cannot be taken.
11. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act based on the material placed before it against the applicant as the same are prima facie sufficient to make out a case against him under the said section.
12. Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
13. Record of the trial be sent immediately alongwith copy of this order.
