Halappa and Others vs State

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.10.2014 rejecting the application filed for discharge on a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003.

The Vigilance squad when visited the premises of the petitioners found that there was unauthorized extraction of electricity and a complaint came to be filed. After the seizure, investigation was held and charge sheet was laid against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

An application was filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. requesting for discharge on the ground that the complainant has no authority to lodge the complaint as he is the Section Officer. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petitions have been filed.

Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court, Sri P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Section Officer had no authority to lodge the complaint and therefore, the investigation held is improper and the petitioners ought to have been discharged by the trial Court.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the Section Officer who lodge the complainant is an Assistant Engineer, on the date when he filed the complaint. Hence, he has authority to lodge the complaint.

At Annexure-E, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the judgment of this Court in Crl. R.P. 522/2012(C) dated 12.09.2012. In para. 8, it is stated that Sri Mallikarjuna was an employee in the Generating Company and held the rank which is equivalent to the Assistant Executive Engineer and therefore, it has held that he had no authority to lodge the complaint as the authorization to lodge the complaint was not produced and the charge for the offence cannot be maintained.

Learned Government Pleader has made available a copy of the notification dated 24.01.2004 in order No. BESCOM/BC-31/1013/03-04. Under this notification, the BESCOM has authorized all the Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers etc., to file a complaint and to institute the proceedings in the jurisdictional Police Stations.

In the case on hand, the petitioners have produced a copy of the complaint and also the FIR at Annexure-A. At the place where the complainant has to sign, he has put his signature and below it, it is mentioned as Manager (O and M). In para 1 of his complaint, the complainant states that he is the Assistant Engineer and in that capacity he is filing this complaint. So from reading this complaint, it would reveal that the complainant is the Assistant Engineer and though he has filed the complaint in his own name and as Assistant Engineer, at the place of signature, he has mentioned his designation as Manager (O and M). Merely because, he has signed as Manager (O and M) does not take away his Authority as Assistant Engineer in which capacity he has filed this complaint. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that the principle laid down by this Court would not be applicable.

The Assistant Engineer is the person who has been authorized by the BESCOM to lodge the complaint and the complainant is the Assistant Engineer and the complaint has been filed by him, though he has signed as the Manager, there is no question of discharge of the petitioners on the aforesaid ground. I do not find any ground to warrant interference in the impugned order of the Court below.

Consequently, these revision petitions are dismissed.

No costs.