Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2840 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Pathak,Rakesh Pathak Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 6.7.10 passed by the
Special Judge/Essential Commodities Act, Allahabad whereby the court while
rejecting the final report summoned the revisionist by way of non-bailable
warrant under Section 135, Electricity Act.
Heard Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Anubhav
Shukla for O.P. No.2, learned AGA and perused the record.
It appears from the record that during checking by the officers of the
Electricity Department it was found that the revisionist was committing theft
of electric energy by connecting illegal cable to the metre. During
investigation the revisionist told that due to some misunderstanding case of
theft was lodged though no theft was being committed. On the contention of
the revisionist F.R. was submitted. Against that F.R. protest petition was filed
by the Electricity Department in which the F.R. was challenged. The trial
court was of the opinion that there was sufficient material in the case diary to
prima facie prove the charge of theft. This included the statements of the
members of the raiding party and therefore, the trial court rejected the final
report and summoned the revisionist by way of non-bailable warrant.
As there was sufficient material to take straightway cognizance under
Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. [though in the order it has been written as 190(1)
(a)] the order cannot be said to be bad in any manner. However, the
straightway issuance of non-bailable warrant cannot be said to be justified in
view of the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 2008 (1) ALJ 40 (SC), Inder
Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others which
lays down that unless it is shown that the service of summons is being
avoided by the accused warrant should not be issued.
In view of the above, I partly allow this revision. The cognizance part of
the order is affirmed, however, issuance of non-bailable warrant is set aside.
The trial court shall first summon the revisionist by way of summons.
Order Date :- 28.7.2010
T. Sinha