Surendra Roy & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 29 July, 2011

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                     Cr.Misc. No.44557 of 2008

    1) Surendra Roy, son of yogi Roy,
    2) Ramsakha Sahani, son of Uttimlal Sahni,
    Both of village Kheda, PS Khanpur, Dist. Samastipur - Petitioners
    Vs.
    1) The State of Bihar,
    2) Praveen Kumar, Incharge Electric Supply Branch, Mathurapur, village Pachpaika, PS
        Ujjiarpur, Dist. Samastipur - Opp. Parties.


2       29.7.2011

HeardMr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.P.K.Chaurasia, A.P.P. for the State

This application has been filed for quashing the orders,

dated 28.1.2008/31.1.2008 passed in Khanpur PS Case No.

75/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur.

The aforesaid case was registered against the

petitioners for the offences alleged to have been committed under

section 379 of the Penal Code and sections 39/44 of the Bihar

Electricity Act.

The petitioners filed an application before the Lok

Adalat as they wished to settle the matter. In accordance with the

order of the Lok Adalat contained in Annexures 2 and 3, it would

appear that counsel for Electricity Board as well as the State

counsel were heard in this matter. After they were heard, the Lok

Adalat came to the finding that there was no instrument to

measure loss caused to the Board. As such the claim made by the

Electricity Board appears to be excessive. Eventually, the

Electricity Board agreed that if the petitioners who came below the

poverty line paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- and 80,000/- respectively,

they would be exempted from the said theft of electricity.
2

Accordingly, vide Annexure 4 series, they paid the sum of

Rs.80,000/- and Rs.75,000/- . Despite aforesaid order of the Lok

Adalat, cognizance has been taken without considering the

aforesaid aspect of the matter.

Since at the stage of cognizance the accused are not

heard, the petitioners could not have the liberty to bring this fact

to the notice of the court below.

I accordingly find that in view of the order of the Lok

Adalat, the State Government cannot claim that the petitioners

should pay an additional amount for compounding the offence

under section 152 of the Electricity Act. As such this court

quashes the impugned order.

This application is, thus, allowed.

haque                                         ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)