AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Goutam Bhaduri, J
Heard.
The present petition is for quashing the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 135 (1) (a) & (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act, 2003).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuing the notice under Section 135 (1) (a) & (d) of the Act, 2003 this fact has not been
ascertained that the alleged theft of electricity wherein it was alleged belongs to the petitioner or not? He further submits that someone has signed
certain notices, which also cannot attribute the allegation on the petitioner. He further submits that the notice was also not issued to the petitioner
before launching the prosecution.
Perusal of the record would show that a complaint has been filed by the non- applicant No.1 and when the raid was conducted the theft of the
electricity was found. Subsequently, after the receipt of the notice an application under Section 157 of the Act, 2003 read with Section 227 of the
CRPC was filed by the petitioner, wherein it was stated that Naina Motors, against whom the allegation of theft is made, situates over the land which
belongs to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is not the proprietor of the Naina Motors and it is in the name of her husband and the same was given
to her husband for construction of Tata Motors workshop. The name of her husband is Nayan Agrawal and the construction was made by Nayan
Agrawal.
After going through the averments made in the application, prima facie it appears that the premises which belong to the petitioner the construction
was being made there, wherein the electricity theft was committed who actually has committed the theft it is a matter of defense, as the land belonged
to the petitioner and who was holding the reins cannot be decided at the threshold by accepting the averments of the petitioner. This Court under the
facts of this case is not inclined to quash the proceedings of the complaint. The petitioner shall raise her defense during the course of trial. The petition
has no merit it is accordingly dismissed.