Laxman and Others vs State

K.S. Gupta, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. filed by Laxman and others seek the setting aside of order dated 3rd March, 1992 of a Metropolitan Magistrate convicting them on their pleading guilty u/s 379 IPC read with Section 39 Electricity Act and releasing after admonition u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 9th May, 1988, the petitioners were found committing theft of electricity by connecting wires to their houses with the open wires of DESU. Charge u/s 379 read with Section 39 of the Electricity Act was thus framed against them on 8th October, 1991 and on their pleading not guilty the case was fixed for recording prosecution evidence on 3rd February, 1992. As no P.W. was present on that date the case was adjourned to 2nd March, 1992 which happened to be a holiday. Petitioners appeared on 3rd March 1992 and on that date the impugned order came to be passed. It is alleged that once the petitioners refused to plead guilty to the charge framed against them, the Metropolitan Magistrate could not have accepted the plea of guilt subsequently made by them without recording any evidence and the impugned order is, Therefore, bad in the eye of law.

I have heard Sh. K.K. Sud for the petitioners and Sh. Akshay Bipin for the State.

It is settled law that inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by this court in respect of any matter covered by a specific provision of the Code of Criminal Procedures or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. If any authority is needed in that behalf, reference may be made to a recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, . Indisputably, against the order under challenge dated 3rd March, 1992, the petitioners had a right of appeal before the court of Sessions which they seem to have not availed of. Therefore, in view of said settled position of law the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained for setting aside the impugned order. Petition is, Therefore, dismissed being not maintainable.