Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1092361
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-16-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Sandeep Kotla Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana and Another
Excerpt:
crl. revision no.2904 of 2013 -1 - in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl. revision no.2904 of 2013 date of decision: 16.9.2013. abdul aziz ........petitioner versus state of haryana and another ......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.sandeep kotla, advocate for the petitioner....sabina, j. petitioner has filed this petition under section 401 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 6.8.2013 whereby charges were ordered to be framed against him. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the fir does not lead to the inference that petitioner had committed theft of electricity or had any dishonest intention to consume electricity by using artificial means. in support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'pawan kumar and others versus the state of haryana, 2003(1) r.c.r.(criminal) 104' and 'ramesh chander versus state of delhi, 1997(4) r.c.r.(civil) 5'. prosecution story, as per the fir (annexure p-1) is that premises of the petitioner were checked on 3.4.2012 and 14.5.2012. when the meter was tested by the laboratory, it was found that the seals had been tampered. amount of ` 16,59,052/- were charged from the account of the consumer. singh gurpreet 2013.09.17 15:50 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl. revision no.2904 of 2013 -2 - consumer was also given notice dated 15.6.2012 but he had failed to deposit the amount in question. thus, a perusal of the fir itself reveals that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity and due to this reason, petitioner was issued notice to pay the amount of ` 16,59,052/-. hence, no ground for interference is made out. the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. dismissed. (sabina) judge september 16, 2013 gurpreet singh gurpreet 2013.09.17 15:50 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Crl.

Revision No.2904 of 2013 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.

Revision No.2904 of 2013 Date of Decision: 16.9.2013.

Abdul Aziz ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner....SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 6.8.2013 whereby charges were ordered to be framed against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR does not lead to the inference that petitioner had committed theft of electricity or had any dishonest intention to consume electricity by using artificial means.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Pawan Kumar and others versus The State of Haryana, 2003(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 104' and 'Ramesh Chander versus State of Delhi, 1997(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 5'.

Prosecution story, as per the FIR (Annexure P-1) is that premises of the petitioner were checked on 3.4.2012 and 14.5.2012.

When the meter was tested by the laboratory, it was found that the seals had been tampered.

Amount of ` 16,59,052/- were charged from the account of the consumer.

Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.

Revision No.2904 of 2013 -2 - Consumer was also given notice dated 15.6.2012 but he had failed to deposit the amount in question.

Thus, a perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity and due to this reason, petitioner was issued notice to pay the amount of ` 16,59,052/-.

Hence, no ground for interference is made out.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE September 16, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh