Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sou. Vimal w/o. Murlidharrao Suradkar, filed a criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 1158 of 2017 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and restoration of her electricity connections. The FIR was lodged by the Assistant Engineer of MSEDCL alleging that on 17 April 2017, during an inspection, it was found that the service wire of the electric meter was bypassed and electricity was being stolen. The applicant was accused of tampering with the meter and committing theft of 8675 units worth Rs. 1,34,480. The applicant contended that the FIR was not maintainable as the complaint was not made by a person authorized under Section 155 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which requires that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 135 except on a complaint in writing made by the appropriate government or an officer authorized by it. The court examined the provisions and found that the Assistant Engineer who filed the complaint was not authorized by the State Government or the Electricity Company to file such complaint. The court held that the mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 155 was not complied with, and therefore, the FIR was liable to be quashed. The court also noted that the compounding opportunity given to the applicant did not cure the lack of sanction. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and directed restoration of the electricity connections subject to payment of outstanding dues.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Electricity Theft - Section 135 read with Section 155 of Electricity Act, 2003 - Sanction for Prosecution - The court considered whether prosecution under Section 135 can proceed without prior sanction under Section 155 - Held that Section 155 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 135 except on a complaint in writing made by the appropriate government or an authorized officer, and the FIR was quashed as the complaint was not made by a person authorized under Section 155 (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be quashed for want of sanction under Section 155 of the Act
Final Decision
The court quashed FIR No. 1158 of 2017 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and directed restoration of electricity connections subject to payment of outstanding dues.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 155 of Electricity Act
- 2003 is mandatory for prosecution of offences under Section 135
- FIR quashed for lack of sanction
- compounding opportunity not a substitute for sanction
