INDEX

Bail Matters

Special Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in Shamim Ahmed & ors., Haradhan vs. State & ors., reported in 2003 Cr.L.J. 2815, Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nirbhay Singh & Anr. vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. 3317 as well as by the Apex Court in Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 1250 of 2003, that in case of issuance of summon in a complaint case wherein cognizance has been taken under non-bailable offence would give an opportunity to the accused to ask for an anticipatory bail as, the sole criteria happens to be being an accused relating to a non-bailable offence.

20 min read

Law connected with granting, denying and cancellation of Bail in connection with a criminal offence

Law of Bail and Bond

A newborn child shouldn’t suffer from hyper technicalities of law- Bail Granted under POCSO(AHC-02/06/2022) - Seeking Bail U/S 363, 366, 504, 506, 376 IPC & Sections 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act-Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
A. GOSWAMI VS UOI: SC upheld Press Rights, stayed FIRs except one while restraining coercive action, allowed three weeks for Bail-24/04/2020 - Save and except for FIR No 238 of 2020 dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, Maharashtra, all further proceedings arising out of and emanating from the remaining FIRs and complaints listed out at Annexure P-2 of the petition shall remain stayed, until further orders; For a period of three weeks, the petitioner shall be protected against any coercive steps arising out of and in relation to the above FIR arising out of the telecast which took place on 21 April 2020;
Aminuddin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(30/09/2022) - BAIL CANCELLED-There can be no manner of doubt that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts. Equally, in a matter such as the present, where a serious offence of murder has taken place, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to account. The length or the period of custody of any of the co-accused persons has hardly any bearing on the subjectmatter of these appeals. Similarly, even if stringent conditions have been imposed, the orders impugned cannot sustain themselves, for being hit by the dictum of this Court.
An absconder or a Proclaimed Offender in terms of Section 82 CrPC is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail-SC - Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the public and
Anticipatory bail granted depending on conduct and behavior of accused, continue end of trial- Issued guidelines: Constitutional Bench - “(1) Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail. (2) Whether the life of
Anticipatory bail is subject to extraordinary equitable discretion of Court - An order of anticipatory bail virtually converts a non bailable offence under the Code to a bailable one subject, of course, to appropriate conditions which the Court can in the interests of justice impose. The circumstances are not enumerated in
Ashish Mishra @ Monu vs State of U.P (26/07/2022) - The vital difference between the convict and accused has to be looked into by keeping at stake the cardinal principles of ''presumption of innocence until proven guilty' and ''guilt beyond reasonable doubt'. Media trial apart from taking up the investigation on its own leads to forming public opinion against the suspect even before the court takes cognizance of the case as a result the accused who should have been presumed innocent is treated a criminal.
Bail can be granted in NDPS cases if in addition of CrPC, Court is satisfied of having reasonable grounds for believing, accused is not guilty of offence & not likely to commit any offence while on bail - where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (29/10/2021) - On the touchstone of the above decisions and for the reasons we have indicated above, the impugned order granting bail is unsustainable. The High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent. The High Court has proceeded on the erroneous basis that no overt act has been assigned to the second respondent. There was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail.
Calcutta High Court Granted Anticipatory Bail without imposing any condition under Electricity Act (05/05/2010) - According to her direction for deposit of the said amount of money was a condition precedent for restoration of electricity and in the event such deposit is not made at its worst the electricity supply shall not be restored, but that cannot be a ground for non-confirming the interim bail of the petitioner granted to her pursuant to an order of anticipatory bail and more particularly when there was no further materials in the Case Diary apart from those considering which a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court enlarged her on anticipatory bail.
CHC stayed bail granted by CBI Court in CBI ACB Kolkata Vs Shri Firhad Hakim @ Bobby Hakim & Ors-17/05/2021 - Public trust and confidence in the judicial system is more important, it being the last resort. They may have a feeling that it is not rule of law which prevails but it is a mob which has an upper hand and especially in a case where it is led by the Chief Minister of the State in the office of CBI and by the Law Minister of the State in the Court Complex. If the parties to a litigation believe in Rule of Law such a system is not followed. The idea was different.
Court should not impose excessive condition for granting bail - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 437 - Bail - Conditions for - Excessively onerous condition that accused should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lacs at stage of FIR - Accused failed to make the payment of said amount and languishing in jail endlessly - Not proper. Order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate imposing condition that accused should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lacs to be set at liberty, not proper. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs. 2 lacs. If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to his legal remedies provided by law.
Custodial trial is not relevant while considering bail application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C, but may have some relevance for anticipatory bail -SC (17/11/2022) - Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the accused is already charge-sheeted and the relevant material is also now a part of the charge-sheet, the same is required to be considered by the High Court. Therefore, the matter ought to be remitted to the High Court to consider the bail application afresh and pass appropriate orders after considering the relevant material/evidence collected during the investigation which are now a part of the charge-sheet
Despite not providing for anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act, however Court can quash FIRs for want of Prima facie case: SC - Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.
Discharge of a person arrested by police in thana level - Discharge of person apprehended No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate. Source: Cr.P.C
GANAPATI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MYSORE - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 307 — Cancelling the bail granted -Once the police had filed a charge sheet in the case, the Magistrate was not at all justified in entertaining any petition filed on behalf of the private complainant and that too acting upon it. behind the back of the accused and cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners-accused.
Gangster Vikas Dubey was granted bail on 28/05/2020 by Allahabad High Court - In the event of arrest the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions
Gautam Kundu vs The Enforcement Directorate (28/02/2020) - This is an application for bail under Section 439, read with Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner who has prayed for his enlargement on bail on any condition.
Granting bail under NDPS Act - PRAJESH SHANTILAL VAGHANI Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND ANOTHER BOMBAY
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Versus The State of Punjab-9/04/1980 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 437 and 438—Anticipatory bail—Considerations for—Anticipation of foul play—The provision for grant of bail can be invoked to meet such contingency in addition to other grounds.
Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and Anr – 24/08/2021 - Apex Court does not interfere with Bail order of HC. But, where the discretion of HC to grant bail has been exercised without due application of mind or in contravention of directions of apex Court, granting bail is liable to be set aside.
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr-29/09/2021 - GRANTING BAIL-The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process
Icchu Devi Choraria Vs Union of India and others- 09/09/1980 - Habeas corpus-Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 22(5)—Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974—Section 3(3)— It is also necessary to point out that in case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by this Court is not to follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise this Court into examining the legality of detention—Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.
In Re: Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons-13/04/2020 - We make it clear that we have not directed the States/ Union Territories to compulsorily release the prisoners from their respective prisons. The purpose of our aforesaid order was to ensure the States/Union Territories to assess the situation in their prisons having regard to the outbreak of the present pandemic in the country and release certain prisoners and for that purpose to determine the category of prisoners to be released.
In Re: Harish K. Madan-13.08.2019 - An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.7.2019 in connection with Ballygunge P.S case no. 27 of 2019 dated 1.3.2019 under sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the IPC - Bail granted
Indian constitutional philosophy of personal liberty - Idealistic view The constitutional philosophy of personal liberty is an idealistic view, the curtailment of liberty for reasons of States’ security, public order, disruption of national economic discipline etc. being envisaged as a necessary evil to be administered under strict
Informant shall be noticed before considering Bail by HC/Session U/S 376(3), 376-AB, 376-DA, and 376-DB IPC - The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018-it has been mandated that the presence of the informant or any person authorized by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code
Jagjeet Singh & Ors VS Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr-18/04/2022 - The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee.
Justice A B Singh of Jharkhand HC allowed Bail on condition of donation to Kerala Relief Fund - The Jharkhand HC Advocate Association general secretary said HCs in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka had issued similar directions to some litigants to pay costs towards the relief fund in Kerala. Bombay HC also asked one Trademark infringer to deposit Cost
Justice S.P. Talukdar committee failed to sell property of Tower Group accused of Rs.350 Crores Scam, SC observed while cancelling bail of the group Chairman - CANCELLATION OF BAIL-However, it is argued by both the Counsel that the amount may be about Rs. 350 Crores. Be that as it may, having regard to the material on record, and since a huge amount of money belonging to investors has been siphoned off, as well as for the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our considered opinion, should not have released the Respondent on bail.
Karnataka HC Justice Krishna S. Dixit granted bail to a rapist because the Victim was tired and fell asleep after the crime! - the explanation offered by the complainant that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep, is unbecoming of an Indian woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished;
Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr-11/12/2021 - BAIL CANCELLED- petitions under Section 439 Cr.PC-Section 147, 148, 149, 307 AND 302 IPC.reasons given for incompletion of the investigation is that the injured is still undergoing treatment which makes it obvious that he has suffered more than the simple injuries referred to by the learned counsel.
Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019 - Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.
Manisha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr- 19/04/2022 - At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial.
Mohammad Azam Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (19/05/2022) - WRIT-Article 142 of the Constitution of India-personal liberty-BAIL-grant interim bail to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, till he files the application for regular bail and the same is considered by the Competent Court.
Naresh Das vs State of Tripura- Bail Guidelines by Tripura High Court-2015 - However, the primary purpose of keeping a person under detention and not granting him bail is not to punish him because punishment can be inflicted only after he is convicted but to ensure that investigation is proper; that the prosecution evidence shall not be tampered with; that the accused shall not try to influence the witnesses; that the trial shall not be unduly delayed and other similar reasons.
P. CHIDAMBARAM Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [DHC]-20/08/2019 - Anticipatory Bail application cancelled - Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 8 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act - Pre-arrest is not meant for high profile economic offenders. Time has come to recommend to the Parliament to suitably amend the Law to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable to economic offenders of high profile cases like the instant one.
P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – 5/9/2019 - Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.
P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement – 4/12/2019 - The instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2718 of 2019 impugned herein is set aside; The appellant is ordered to be released on bail if he is not required in any other case, subject to executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of the like sum produced to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; The passport ordered to be deposited by this Court in the CBI case shall remain in deposit and the appellant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation in the course of further investigation as and when required by the respondent. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses;
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr-24/01/2020 - The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.
Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR-1/07/2019 - Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Sub-section (5) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C-The question, as to whether when an accused is bailed out in a criminal case, in which new offences have been added, whether for arresting the accused, it is necessary to get the bail cancelled, has arisen time and again, there are divergent views of different High Courts on the above question.
Prayer for pre-arrest bail was turned down by Apex Court granted by Calcutta High Court -13.08.2019 - Bail granted - In the matter of: Riday @ Hriday Ghosh @ Ridoy - The accused was not named in the first information report and as co-accused persons are on regular bail/anticipatory bail, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Prosecution fails to explain injuries of accused, this lacuna entitles to bail-Allahabad HC-3/9/2020 - It is, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused as well and prima facie this lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case, entitles the applicants to be enlarged on bail. However, there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case but that would apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial.
Protracted incarceration - Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616. and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702 it was argued that such protracted incarceration violates the respondent’s right to speedy trial and access to justice; in which case, Constitutional Courts could exercise their powers to grant bail, regardless of limitations specified under special enactments.
Provisions for bail and bonds under Pocso Act 2012 - Pocso Act 2012 S 31. Application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before a Special Court: Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including the provisions as to bail
Rajeev Kumar -Vs CBI, SP, Economic Offences –IV, CGO Complex-CHC 01/10/2019 - Therefore, the status of a witness is convertible to the accused during the course of investigation subject to the collection of independent sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, which must be in the nature of startling and clinching in sense.
Read Bail Order of Firhad Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee, Madan Mitra and Sovan Chatterjee by CBI Court Kolkata-17/05/2021 - Over and above when the purpose of investigation has already been completed as against the arrested persons Sir Madan Mitra, Firhad Hakim @ Bobby Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee and Sovan Chatterjee and where there is no prayer for C.B.I custody for further interrogation, mere prayer for judicial custody can not be the ground for detention of the arrest persons. I think what ever prayer has been made by the I.O in respect of the present case should not be entertained on the other hand what ever prayer has been made in respect of bail of the accused Sir Madan Mitra, Firhad Hakim @ Bobby Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee and Sovan Chatterjee should be allowed.
Rohit Sharma vs State Nct Of Delhi (27/09/2021) - Sections 186/353/307 IPC.- Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court to the present case, no doubt the petitioner is charged with an offence under Section 307 IPC and if convicted, the petitioner may be sentenced for life, but that alone cannot be a factum to keep the petitioner in incarceration.
Sadhan Chaudhury Vs The State of Rajasthan and Anr- 12/07/2022 - Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC-t is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.
Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI – 23/11/2011 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Constitution of India—Article 21—BAIL—Provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant BAIL to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions—Since jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of the society in general—BAIL is rule and committal to jail an exception.
SC granted bail to P. Chidambaram subject to executing bail bonds of Rs.2 lakhs u/s 439 of Cr.PC- 4/11/2019 - While the learned Judge was empowered to look at the materials produced in a sealed cover to satisfy his judicial conscience, the learned Judge ought not to have recorded finding based on the materials produced in a sealed cover.
SC Granted postarrest bail pending trial on the ground of long incarceration-01/12/2021 - That the requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008(hereinafter being referred to as "Act 2008") mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on daytoday basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act 2008 but the ground realities are totally different as in the instant case, after the chargesheets came to be filed way back in 2012, the charges have been framed after 7 years of filing of the chargesheet on 20th June, 2019.
Somesh Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr-22/07/21 - Post Conviction Bail Cancelled-Observed: The courts comprised in the district judiciary are the first point of interface with citizens. If the faith of the citizen in the administration of justice has to be preserved, it is to the district judiciary that attention must be focused as well as the 'higher' judiciary.
SRI DASAIAH AND SMT. RATHNAMMAVs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Cancellation of bail granted — Petitioners having been unsuccessful in obtaining bail before jurisdictional Sessions Court are before the Court praying for being enlarged on bail — Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Sessions Court without express permission and they shall appear before Sessions Court on all the dates of hearing — If any such incident is reported prosecution is at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of bail granted
SRI MURUGESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 302 — Offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 of IPC — Petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere with or put obstacle to the investigation — Breach of any one of the above conditions will entitle the prosecution to move this Court for cancellation of the bail granted
State of Kerala Vs. Mahesh-19/03/2021 - It appears that the High Court has completely misappreciated the object, scope and ambit of the directions issued by this Court from time to time in In Re : Contagion of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons. This Court did not direct release of all under-trial prisoners, irrespective of the severity of the offence. After hearing the learned Attorney General of India, Mr. Venugopal, the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, Mr. Dushyant Dave and other Learned Counsel, the States and Union Territories were directed to constitute a High Powered Committee to determine which class of prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail for such period as might be thought appropriate.
Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. State of Punjab and Anr- 3/12/2020 - FIR has been lodged/filed by the brother of the deceased after a period of almost 29 years from the date of incident and after a period of 9 years from the date of decision of this Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) and nothing is on record that in between he had taken any steps to initiate criminal proceedings and/or lodged an FIR, we are of the opinion that at least a case is made out by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Many a time, delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings. However, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court granted Bail to Teesta Setalvad without considering merits of the case (02/09/2022) - We hasten to add that the relief of interim bail is granted to the appellant in the peculiar facts including the fact that the appellant happens to be a lady. This shall not be taken to be a reflection on merits and shall not be used by the other accused.
Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another – 29/1/2020 - Anticipatory Bail-An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.
Under S. 167(2) of Cr.P.C accused person is entitled to be released on bail if investigation is not completed within sixty days. - The Provision is Mandatory. In Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 1465, the Court explained the mandatory character of the requirement of the proviso to S. 167(2) that an accused person is entitled to be released on
What are the guiding factors for exercising the power to granting bail - The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
What to do when after grant of bail further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added - The recourse available to an accused in a situation where after grant of bail, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added to the FIR, is for him to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences.
Whether an application for anticipatory bail at the instance of a child in conflict with law to be maintainable? - It is found that there are various safeguards provided to a child in conflict with law in the event the child is apprehended by the police. Taking into consideration the safeguards provided under the 2015 Act and in the light of the legal position that a child in conflict with law cannot be arrested, the question of granting bail in anticipation of arrest of a child in conflict with law does not arise at all. In the 2015 enactment the legislature did not, consciously, empower the police to arrest a child in conflict with law. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of a child in conflict with law is not maintainable.

Tags: Bail INDEX

Tagged: Electricity Theft

This topic has 12 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by advtanmoy.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 13 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
27/07/2019 at 08:49 #121382

advtanmoy
Keymaster

Special Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in Shamim Ahmed & ors., Haradhan vs. State & ors., reported in 2003 Cr.L.J. 2815, Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nirbhay Singh & Anr. vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. 3317 as well as by the Apex Court in Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 1250 of 2003, that in case of issuance of summon in a complaint case wherein cognizance has been taken under non-bailable offence would give an opportunity to the accused to ask for an anticipatory bail as, the sole criteria happens to be being an accused relating to a non-bailable offence.

[See the full post at: Bail Matters]

15/01/2023 at 00:23 #121383

advtanmoy
Keymaster

Shamim Ahmed And Ors., Haradhan vs State And Ors (Calcutta High Court-04/04/2003)

A Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sheikh Khasim Bi v. State reported in 1986 Cr.LJ 1303 (AP) has held by overruling two of its earlier decisions, that the filing of charge-sheet by police and issuance of warrant by Magistrate, do not take away the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438. A similar view was taken by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nirbhay Singh v. State reported in 1995 Cr.LJ 3317 (MP) and viewed that where an order of anticipatory bail is passed after issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest by a Magistrate the duty of the police officer entrusted with execution of the warrant would be to arrest the person and produce him before the Magistrate who thereupon shall deal with the accused as required by the order of anticipatory bail. In fact in both the cases, the view taken by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Puran Singh v. Ajit Singh reported in 1985 Cr.LJ 897 (P&H) were confirmed.

As regards other aspects of maintainability of an application under Section 438 at a post cognizance stage, we like to point out that while passing an order under Section 438 the High Court or the Court of Session, wherever such an application is presented for consideration, is required to consider the application on merits, and in the order imposes conditions, in the light of the facts of a particular case, as may be thought fit and proper. In Section 438(2) it is further clarified that the conditions which could be imposed under Section 437(3) can also be imposed, “as if the bail were granted under that section”. This particular aspect of the legislation is required to be taken into account while considering the maintainability of an application under Section 438 at a post cognizance stage. There is nothing in Section 438 authorising an applicant to get an order mandatorily. On the other hand, it is clarified by the Apex Court in several judgments that the passing of an order under Section 438 is entirely at the discretion of the Court where such an application is filed. So mere filing of an application under Section 438 neither can stall an investigation or inquiry nor it can stand on the way of a trial of a case after filing of the charge-sheet or after issuance of process under Section 204 or 209 of the Code.

15/01/2023 at 00:31 #121384

advtanmoy
Keymaster

Apex Court is the case of Bal Chand Jain v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1977 AIR 366, 1977 SCR (2) 52) in which it was viewed that the term ‘anticipatory bail’ is really a misnomer because what Section 438 contemplates is not an anticipatory bail but merely an order directing releases of accused on bail in the event of his arrest and therefore, it is manifest that there is no question of bail unless the person is arrested in connection with any non-bailable offence by the police. In Gur Baksh Singh’s case (supra) also it has been observed that ordinary bail is granted after the arrest whereas anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation at arrest and is, therefore, effective at the very moment of arrest.

In Bal Chand Jain’s case (supra) the Apex Court initially took the view that granting of such anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated or a frivolous case might be launched against him, or there are reasonable grounds for holding a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail such power is to be exercised. It is also viewed that this power being rather of an unusual nature, it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of the judiciary. It is a power exercisable in case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence and there is no limitation as to the category of non-bailable offence in respect of which the power can be exercised. Of course, the view taken by the Apex Court in Bal Chand Jain’s case (supra) as regards making out special case before granting an anticipatory bail was not approved by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Gur Baksh Singh’s case (supra) and it was viewed that the applicant has undoubtedly to make out the case for anticipatory bail and no one can go further and say that he must make out a special case.

15/01/2023 at 00:35 #121385

advtanmoy
Keymaster

Balchand Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1977 AIR 366, 1977 SCR (2) 52

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this Section. Rule 184 of the Rules made under Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971 enacts that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, no person accused or convicted of a contravention of the Rules or orders made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless (a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and (b) where the prosecution opposes the application and the contravention is of any such provision of the Rules or orders made thereunder as the Central Government or the State Government may, by notified order specify in this behalf, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such contravention.

A Food Inspector raided the shop of the appellant, who was a merchant dealing in kiryana goods and kerosene oil etc., and seized his account books. Apprehending that he might be arrested on a charge of non-bailable offence for contravention of the provisions of the Defence and Internal Security of India Act and the Rules, the appellant approached the Sessions Judge for an anticipatory bail under s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Sessions Judge rejected the application. Dismissing his appeal, the High Court held that the express provisions of r.184 of the Rules superseded s. 438 of the Code in so far as offences set out in r. 184 were concerned.

Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the High Court:

15/01/2023 at 01:01 #121389

advtanmoy
Keymaster

Narcotics Control Bureau vs Krishan Lal And Others

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1991 AIR 558, 1991 SCR (1) 139

02/02/2023 at 02:33 #122522
Aparajita JNU
Guest
CONSUMER ISSUES IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTRICITY ACT

ELECTRICITY : Bill: Arbitrary Amount after more than four years : Not justified

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Electricity Bill Opposite party issued electricity bill for 19.1.1984 to 4.10.1988 in March, 1993 – Complaint filed – district Forum set aside demand – Appeal – Opposite Party apprehended that meter sped working in January, 1984 – No steps taken for replacement of meter -0 No interference called for.

Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Operation v. B.R. Sur Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 150

Bill: Arrears : Factum of Consumption never Denied: Consumer Liable to Minimum charges Based on Installed Capacity

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)c)(iii) – Deficiency in Service – Electricity Bill, Arrears – /forum held dispute not referred to Electrical Inspector – Arrears could not be charged for period exceeding 6 months, bill set aside – Hence appeal – Factum of consumption never denied – shop keeper liable to pay minimum charges based on installed capacity – Order set aside.

Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity ‘OP’ v. Gopal Mills Store Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 169

Bill:Essential Requirements never Fulfilled:Sundry Charges Set Aside

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(c)- Complaint – Electricity Bill – Sundry Charges – Indian electricity Act, 1910 – Section 26(6) – Slowness of electricity meter – Demand for Rs.6,01,187/- made – Dispute not referred to Electrical Inspector – Essential requirement never fulfilled – Bill of sundry charges set aside.

Chandigarh Bottling Co. v. Chandigarh Electricity Department Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 61

Bill : Meter Burnt : Additional Electric charges Raised

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(c) and 17 – Complaint – Electricity Bill – Meter burnt – Plant in full operation – Low meter installed – Upto date bills paid – Additional electric charges raised – Referred to C.E.I.W.B. – Line not to be disconnected till report received – Finding binding on parties.

Uma Ice Plant v. Asstt. Engr. Banshdroni. Gr. of E.S. W.B.S.E.B. West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. 269

Bill : Penalties : Electricity through Industrial Connection Objectionable

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Electricity Bill – Penalty – Complaint possessed two electric power meters – Commercial meter service cable broke down – Complaint illegally availed electric supply through industrial connection – Electricity bill served – Penalty imposed for excess load – Use of electricity through industrial connection, objectionable – claim for setting aside penalties rejected.

Ram Gopal v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 375

Bill : Repair or Replacement of Meter after a period of four years : Deficiency in Service

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Electricity Bill – Opposite party issued electricity bill for 19.1.1984 to 4.10.1988 in March, 1993 – Complaint filed – District Forum set aside demand – Appeal – Opposite party apprehended that meter stopped working in January, 1984 – No steps taken for replacement of meter – No interference called for.

Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Operation v. B.R. Sur Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 150

Compensation

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(d) – Compensation – Electricity disconnected – Complaint – No sufficient evidence to come to any figure to compensate complaint – Rs.5,000/- granted as compensation.

Satpal Kaur v. Executive Engineer P.S.E.B. & Anr. Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 50

Connection : Non-release of: No Discrimination by Showing Preference

-Consumer Protection Act. 1986 – Section 2(1)(c)(iii) – Electricity Connection – Non-release of – Deficiency in Service – District Forum directed HSEB to release the connection – Hence appeal – Number of applicants already waiting for their turn – HSEB cannot be compelled by Consumer Court to discriminate by showing preference to one applicant over others – Order set aside.

Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, H.S.E.B. v. Jagiro Devi Haryana S.C.D.R.C 311

Delay in Replacement of Transformer : Deficiency in Service

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d) – Electricity – Deficiency in Service – Delay in Replacement of Transformer – Agreement for supply of power to Lift Irrigation point – Transformer got damaged by lighting stroke – Disruption in supply of power – Delay of 11 months for replacement of transformer – Irrigation of land seriously affected – complaint entitled to compensation.

Rajni Kanta Mishra v. Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) Orissa S.C.D.R.C. 193

Disconnection : Deficiency in Service Established

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Deficiency in Service – Electricity – Disconnection – Opposite party removed high tension wires – Electricity to the tubewell of complaint disconnected – complaint filed – Electricity restored after filing of complaint – Remained disconnected for 10 days – Complaint – Deficiency in service established.

Satpal Kaur v. Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B. & Anr. Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 50

Excessive Bill

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Electricity Bill – Civil suit filed for refund of excess amount charged – withdrawn and dismissed to recourse proceedings under Consumer Protection Act – Forum held, after dismissal of suit recourse under Consumer Protection Act not possible – Hence appeal – Remedy under Consumer Protection Act additional one – Suit not dismissed on merits – Non production of order copy – No presumption can be drawn regarding its contents – Order not justified in law – Set aside.

Mohindra Cold Storage v.Punjab State Electricity Board Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 250

Failed to Release Connection

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Electricity Connection – Complaint applied for domestic light connection – Approved – Opposite party failed to release connection – District Forum directed opposite party to release connection and awarded compensation – Hence appeal – Contention raised, Complaint unauthorisedly occupied premises, not entitled for electricity connection – No material produced in support – Complaint could not be held unauthorised occupant of property – Order of District Forum upheld.

Delhi Vidyut Board v. Daya Dutt Vashistha Delhi S.C.D.R.C. 707

-Hiring of Service : Consumer

-Consumer Protection Act. 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Section 2(1)(o) – Service – Electricity – Complaint receiving electricity from opposite party as per agreement of 60 H.P. – Using only 40 H.P. – Complaint filed for return of excess charges – Opposite party is providing service – Complaint is consumer.

Jainendra Kumar v. M.P. Electricity Board Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 625

-Jurisdiction:Validity of Tariff

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(c)(iii) – Electricity – Unreasonable Tariff – Deficiency in Service – Jurisdiction – Complaint an Advocate, running Office – Electricity charged under tariff for non-residential supply – Offices categorised under non-residential supply – No deficiency proved – Consumer forum has no jurisdiction to decide validity of tariff prepared.

Ashutosh Burathoki v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors. Himachal Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 11

-Line Dismantled Unauthorisedly:Deficiency in Service

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(c)(iii) – Electricity – Line Dismantled Unauthorisedly – Deficiency in Service – Owner placing obstructions in the passage of current – Line drawn without objection of owner of land – Owner cannot object at later stage – No deficiency in service on part of O.P. – Interference from third party – Duty of O.P. to restore the line dismantled unauthorisedly.

Mariamma Unnunni v. Asstt. Engineer, Electrical Major Section Kerala S.C.D.R.C. 113

-Minimum Charges : Consumer is liable to Pay

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17(b) – Revision – Electricity Charges – Minimum charges – Consumer is liable to pay minimum guaranteed charges in terms of conditions of supply.

Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, APSEB v. Gadde Pramila Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 432

-Misuse Charges:Recoverable for six months

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15 – Appeal – Indian Electricity Act, 1910 – Section 37 – General Condition of Supply – Condition No.31(d) – Misuse Charges – Electricity connection – provided for irrigation purpose – Opposite party found misuse – Bill raised for misuse charges for one year – Complaint – Dismissed – Appeal – – charges – recoverable only for six months – Demand for a period of one year is illegal.

Balkrishna Patidar v. Junior Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Maxi Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 643

-Power not Supplied : Attitude Unsympathetic : Compensation

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d) – Deficiency in Service – Electricity -Power not Supplied – Compensation – Petitioner approached W.B.S.E.B. for starting oil industry – Being assured of supply applied for financial loan – Sanctioned Construction made – Machineries purchased – Electricity not supplied – Petitioner unable to start industry – Loan repaid to Corporation – Compensation claimed – Board’s attitude most unsympathetic – Deficiency in service proved – compensation reduced to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs. One lakh awarded by Forum.

West Bengal State Electricity Board V. SK. Neharul Ali West Bengal S.C.D.R.C 302

Refund of charges on Basis of Connected Load : Demand in Accordance with Agreement

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15- Appeal – Indian Electricity Act, 1910- Sction37 – Complaint was supplied 60 H.P electricity – Connected load only 40 H.P.- Claimed refund of charges made on the basis of connected load of 60 H.P. Denied-complaint – dismissed- Appeal-Demand was in accordance with the agreement.

Jainendra Kumar V. M.P Electricity Board Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C.625

-Rules
- Indian Electricity Rules, 1956-Rules 77- Clearance Above Ground of Lowest Conductor – No conductor of an overhead line shall be erected anywhere unless there is 13 feet of clearance above the ground.
Ramasami V.P. Shanmugavelu Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C.497

Electricity : Service Connection not Given : Justified

-Service Connection not Given : Justified
- Consumer Protection Ac, 1986 – Section 2(1)(c)(iii) – Electricity- Service Connection not Given – Deficiency in Service – Complaint applied for electricity service connection for Diesel Bank- Ground clearance less than 8 feet – Opposite party reused service connection – District Forum held, opposite party deficient in service, awarded compensation- Hence appeal- Rules requiring clearance of minimum of about13 feet not satisfied – opposite party justified in declining service connection
S.Ramasami V.P. Shammugavelu Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C 497

-Supply Obstructed : Title Dispute : Prayer Rejected
- Consumer Protection Act. 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal- Elect5icity- Supply Obstructed – Forum held, Petitioners bona fide occupiers- Pendency of civil suit not bar to grant of electricity- Hence appeal- Title dispute between parties based on possession – Grant of electricity may give rise to complications in title suit- Petitioners prayer should not be allowed at this stage- Order set aside.
Kumud Kumar Mandal V. Kartick Chandra Naskar West Bengal S.C.D.R.C 312

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY : Feeder not Installed : Deficiency in Service

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(c)(iii) – Electricity Supply – Feeder not Installed – Deficiency in Service – Jurisdiction- Complaint’s Company manufacturing cement – Electricity supply provided on regular feeder- Insufficient- Installation of independent feeder applied for – Money deposited- |Feeder not installed – Compensation claimed for deficiency in service – Voluminous documentary evidence required to be gone into – Complaint not maintainable under limited jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act.

Nitika Cements Ltd. V. Haryana State Electricity Board Haryana S.C.D.R.C 430

ELECTRICITY TARIFF

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15- Appeal – Electricity Tariff- Complaint was charged for electricity on flat rates- Opposite party revised the bills – Complaint – No opportunity afforded to Complaint – HSEB can to revise the bill

Sub- Divisional Officer, Operation HSEB v. Om Parkash Haryana S.C.D.R.C 235

-Lawyers’ Offices at Residences

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 Appeal- Electricity- Tariff- Complaint in Lawyers’ Offices maintained at their residences- Domestic supply – Cannot be equated with ” commercial tariff”

Sub – Divisional Officer, sub-Division HVPN, Karnal V. Advocate Sh. Sushil Blushan Gupta Haryana S.C.D.R.D 297

ELECTROCUTION : Compensation Granted

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1)(d) – Compensation- Electrocution – Electric wires passing over complainant’s field – Wire hardly 7′-8′ height from grounds – Wire broke down resulting electrocution of she-buffalo grazing in field – Direct liability to be fastened on Executive Engineer – Electric wire so dangerous even tractors could not pass Not attended for three months even after writing of Collector – Extreme example of corruption- Gross negligence on part of supervisory officer- Compensation granted.

Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors. V. Charn Singh Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C 162

EVIDENCE : Burden of Proving Fact

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 104 – Burden of Proving Fact – Party in the knowledge of fact should discharge the onus.

National Forum for Consumer Education V. Sanjay Krishi Seva Kendra & Ors. Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. 451
- Entry of Data of Birth in School : Not of Much evidentiary value to prove age
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 35 – Date of Birth – Age – Entry of Date of Birth in School – Not of much evidentiary value to prove the age of a person.
Study Circle Society v. Life Insurance Corporation Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 719
- Opportunity Evidence
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Opportunity of Evidence- Complaint filed- Written statement despatched by post – Complaint not contested by counsel – district Forum allowed complaint – Appeal – Appellant could not adduce evidence – Case remanded.
Tata Hydro-Electric power supply co. Ltd.V.Ms. Savita Rani Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C 234

EXECUTION ; Continuation of Compliant : Jurisdiction to Proceed with the Execution Proceedings

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 21 – Execution- Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act,1993 – Complaint field in 1992 before State Commission claiming Rs. 2,61,272/- -Amendment raised pecuniary jurisdiction of district Forum to Rs. 5,00,000/- Commission awarded amount Rs2,61,272/- on 31.12.1996 – Execution filed before Commission – Judgement-debtor objected to the jurisdiction- Execution is continuation of complaint Commission has got the jurisdiction to proceed with the execution proceedings.

B.S. Malathi V. Mr. Paramjit Singh Karnataka S.C.D.R.C 659

Enforcement of orders : Penalties : Two Independent Remedies

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 25 & 27- Execution Petition – Enforcement of Orders – Penalties – Non Compliance of Order – Section 25 & 27 provide two independent remedies- Proceedings u/Sec.25 civil in nature- Proceedings u/Sec.27 criminal, quasi against petitioner u/Sec – Imposition of fine and sentence by forum, violative of principles of natural justice – Order set aside.

Deepthi Coaching Centre V. Itta Krishnaiah Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C 208

Execution : Proceedings
- Proceeding
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 27 – Execution Proceeding – District forum has no jurisdiction to enquire into which was not the subject matter of complaint.
Assistant accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, APSED V. Gadde Pramila Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 432

Proceedings : Recovery of Money

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 27 – Execution – Recovery of Money – Arrest of Judgment Debtor – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 56 and 58 – Arrest of woman – Execution filed before district Forum – Order for recovery of money – District Forum cannot order the arrest of women for recovery of the amount.

Mrs. Jancy Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. Kerala H.C. 464

EX-PARTE

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 -Appeal – Ex-parte – Complaint filed – Opposite party proceeded ex-parte – Opposite party filed application for setting aside ex-parte order – Not decided by District Forum – Decided complaint – Appeal – Ex-parte against opposite party has to be set aside.

National Auto Electric Works V. R.V. Technolinks (P) Ltd Delhi S.C.D.R.C 37
02/02/2023 at 02:50 #122523

Aparajita JNU
Guest

NIKSAN v. STATE OF HARYANA

Punjab & Haryana High Court

CRM-M-42857-2020 2

Present: Mr. Rajesh Nain,

Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

(ORAL) Heard through video conferencing.

The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.3963 dated 02.11.2020, under Section 135 read with Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, registered at Police Station Irrigation and Power, Ambala. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity and a demand of `3,80,000/- including penalty charges was raised against him.

The petitioner had deposited 50% of the demand amount. This Court, by the order dated 18.12.2020, had directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he was to be released on ad-interim bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Amit Kumar, states that the petitioner has joined the investigation. In view of the above and the petitioner having joined investigation, the order dated 18.12.2020 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

However, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. He shall also join investigation as and when called upon to do so. The petition stands disposed of.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

03.03.2021

02/02/2023 at 03:07 #122524

Aparajita JNU
Guest

THEFT OF ELECTRICITY WAS PROVED BY EVIDENCE

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Petitioner vs Mohan Lal

DELHI HIGH COURT

VIPIN SANGHI, J

(OPEN COURT)

1. The present leave petition has been preferred to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 02.09.2013 passed by Sh. Arun Kumar Arya, Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Electricity), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in CC No. 119/2007, whereby the respondent is acquitted of the offence under Section 135/151 of the Electricity Act, 2003.</p>

2. The case of the petitioner complainant was that on 05.06.2006, at about 02:25 PM a team comprising of four officers/employees of the petitioner – including PW-2 Sh. M.M Sharma raided the premises bearing No. 46, Ground Floor, Parda Bagh, Darya Ganj, Delhi in the presence of representatives of accused/respondent. The accused was found indulging in direct theft of electricity from BYPL service cable. No meter was found installed at the premises. The accused was using the load of 2.205 KW/NX/DT. The Manager (Enf.) was telephonically called to the spot, who seized all the material evidence. The official of the petitioner clicked photographs at the site with the help of digital camera. The reports and documents were not signed by the representatives of the accused at the spot. The accused was booked for the offence of direct theft of electricity and assessment bill of Rs. 1,02,738/- was raised against the accused. On his failure to pay the same, complaint in question was preferred against the accused.

3. The accused was summoned vide order dated 20.07.2007 of the Trial Court. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 135 and 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused vide order dated 01.07.2008, to which the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial.

4. The petitioner complainant examined two witnesses, namely PW 1 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan (Authorized representative) and PW 2 Sh. M.M Sharma (DGM). On behalf of the accused, son of the accused Sh. Sunny Bajaj was examined as DW1. The star witness of the prosecution PW-2 and Sh. M.M Sharma deposed that on 05.06.2006 at about 02:25 pm he along with Sh. Akhilesh Kumar (GET), Sh. K.U Rehman (DET) and Sh. Javed Saleem (Lineman) had conducted a raid at the premises bearing no. 46, Ground Floor, Parda Bagh, Darya Ganj. At the time of inspection no electricity meter was installed at the site. However, the accused was illegally using the electricity from BSES line through illegal wire which were further connected with the connected load of the said premises. The total connected load of 2.205 KW was being used by the accused for non – domestic purpose. The load report (Ex. CW2/3), the inspection report (Ex. CW2/3), meter reading report (Ex. CW 2/2) bore his signatures at point A. They also took photographs (Ex. CW2/5 collectively) and their CD (Ex.CW2/7) was prepared. He deposed that during the inspection, the accused was present at the spot. Sh. Vikrant Seth (Business Manager) was called to the spot for seizing the case property. All the documents were prepared at the spot, and offered to the accused, but he refused to receive or sign the same and also did not allow to paste the same.

5. In his cross-examination PW-2 admitted that he had the written authority to conduct the raid from senior officers, but same was not filed on record. He did not procure the document pertaining to occupancy, or tenancy, or the ownership of the inspected premises. He could not tell the exact nature of activity carried out in the premises. He further admitted that the photographs, which were kept on record were not of the premises in question and the same were of the adjoining premises. The person present at site stated himself as Mohan Lal. PW-2 stated that theft was being committed by tapping through service line of other user.

6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied the allegations against him. DW-1 deposed that neither the shop in question was in the name of accused Mohan Lal, nor any meter was installed in the said premises in the name of the accused. It was stated that Mohan Lal has no concern with the premises i.e 46, Ground Floor, Parda Bagh, Darya Ganj, Delhi.

7. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the learned ASJ acquitted the respondent accused.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment is laconic. Merely because three out of four officers, who were part of the raiding party, had not been examined, the said omission was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, since PW-2 Sh. M.M Sharma, who was one of the officers who conducted the raid, had deposed before the Trial Court and supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that there is a high rate of attrition in the organization of the petitioner, and officers who formed part of the raiding party, may not be available when the matter went on trial.</p>

9. I find no merit in this submission and, in my view, the Trial Court has correctly appreciated this aspect in the impugned judgment. No doubt, it was not necessary that all the members of the raiding party be examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court. However, if the deposition of the witness produced and relied upon by the prosecution suffers from material contradictions, and the prosecution had taken the risk of not examining the other witnesses, who formed part of the raiding party, then the prosecution would have to fail.

10. In the present case, PW-2 testified that the accused was present at the spot at the time of the raid. However, in the complaint, the petitioner had claimed that the representatives of the accused were present at the site. It was not claimed that the accused himself was personally present.

11. Secondly, in order to connect the accused with the offence, it was essential for the petitioner company to show that the accused was connected with the premises in which the theft was allegedly being committed. However, the owner of the premises in question was not examined to establish the capacity in which the accused was allegedly in occupation of the premises.</p>

12. While it was claimed in the complaint that theft was committed from BYPL line through illegal wire, in his cross-examination PW-2 stated that the theft was being committed by tapping through service line of some other user. However, the identity of the other user was not disclosed, and he was not cited as a witness. No independent person was joined at the time of seizure of the case property. The petitioner also did not lodge any FIR in this case to take Police help for verification of the occupant/accused, or seizing the material. The photographer, who had taken the photographs at the spot, was not identified, or examined in Court. The Compact Disk containing the photographs taken from the digital camera (Exhibit CW-2.D-1) was not proved in accordance with section 65b of the evidence act. Even though PW-2 admitted that the alleged illegal wire used for theft was around 15 metres but, surprisingly, only a piece of 0.75 meter was produced before the Court.

13. The report prepared at the site was required to be signed in terms of Regulation 25 (vii) Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance Standards Metering and Billing) Regulation, 2002 [DERC Regulation, 2002] by each member of the raiding team. According to the petitioner, there were four officers in the raiding team, including one Sh. Jawed Salim. However, the said report was signed by three members and not by Sh. Jawed Salim. In terms of Regulations 25 (i) of the DERC Regulation, 2002, it was essential that the raiding team carry a written authority of the designated officer of the licensee. However, no such authority was placed on record. Though it was claimed by the prosecution that the case property was seized at the instance of Vikram Seth, he was not examined as a prosecution witness before the court.

14. From the above discussion, it is evident that there were several, and not just one, lacunae in the case of the prosecution which leads to the inference that the prosecution had not established the commission of alleged offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The numerous lapses taken note of by the Trial Court raise doubts on the case of the prosecution with regard to the involvement of the respondent in the offence in question. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it cannot be said that the same suffers from perversity, or that there is material lack of appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. In these circumstances, there is no justification to grant leave to appeal in the present case.

15. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

02/02/2023 at 09:44 #122526

advtanmoy
Keymaster

The Electricity Rules, 2005

1- Short title and commencement

(1) These rules shall be called the Electricity Rules, 2005.
(2) These rules shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2- Definitions.—In these rules, unless the context otherwise, requires,—(a) “Act” means the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003);
(b) the words and expressions used and not defined herein but defined in the Act shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Act.

3. Requirements of Captive Generating Plant.—(1) No power plant shall qualify as a ‘Captive Generating Plant’ under section 9 read with clause (8) of section 2 of the Act unless—(a) in case of a power plant—(i) not less than twenty six per cent. of the ownership is held by the captive user(s), and
(ii) not less than fifty one per cent. of the aggregate electricity generated in such plant, determined on an annual basis, is consumed for the captive use: Provided that in case of power plant set up by registered co-operative society, the conditions mentioned under paragraphs (i) and (ii) above shall be satisfied collectively by the members of the co-operative society: Provided further that in case of association of persons, the captive user(s) shall hold not less than twenty six per cent. of the ownership of the plant in aggregate and such captive user(s) shall consume not less than fifty one per cent. of the electricity generated, determined on an annual basis, in proportion to their shares in ownership of the power plant within a variation not exceeding ten per cent.;
(b) in case of a generating station owned by a company formed as special purpose vehicle for such generating station, a unit or units of such generating station identified for captive use and not the entire generating station satisfies the conditions contained in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of sub-clause (a) above including— Explanation.—(1) The electricity required to be consumed by captive users shall be determined with reference to such generating unit or units in aggregate identified for captive use and not with reference to generating station as a whole; and
(2) The equity shares to be held by the captive user(s) in the generating station shall not be less than twenty six per cent. of the proportionate of the equity of the company related to the generating unit or units identified as the captive generating plant. Illustration In a generating station with two units of 50 MW each namely Units A and B, one unit of 50 MW namely Unit A may be identified as the Captive Generating Plant. The captive users shall hold not less than thirteen per cent. of the equity shares in the company (being the twenty six per cent. proportionate to Unit A of 50 MW) and not less than fifty one per cent. of the electricity generated in Unit A determined on an annual basis is to be consumed by the captive users.
(2) It shall be the obligation of the captive users to ensure that the consumption by the captive users at the percentages mentioned in sub‑clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) above is maintained and in case the minimum percentage of captive use is not complied with in any year, the entire electricity generated shall be treated as if it is a supply of electricity by a generating company. Explanation.—(1) For the purpose of this rule,—(a) “annual basis” shall be determined based on a financial year;
(b) “captive user” shall mean the end user of the electricity generated in a Captive Generating Plant and the term “captive use” shall be construed accordingly;
(c) “ownership” in relation to a generating station or power plant set up by a company or any other body corporate shall mean the equity share capital with voting rights. In other cases ownership shall mean proprietary interest and control over the generating station or power plant;
(d) “Special Purpose Vehicle” shall mean a legal entity owning, operating and maintaining a generating station and with no other business or activity to be engaged in by the legal entity.

4. Distribution system.—The distribution system of a distribution licensee in terms of sub‑section (19) of section 2 of the Act shall also include electric line, sub‑station and electrical plant that are primarily maintained for the purpose of distributing electricity in the area of supply of such distribution licensee notwithstanding that such line, sub‑station or electrical plant are high pressure cables or overhead lines or associated with such high pressure cables or overhead lines; or used incidentally for the purposes of transmitting electricity for others.

5. Compliance with the directions by transmission licensee.—(1) The National Load Despatch Centre, Regional Load Despatch Centre, as the case may be, or the State Load Despatch Centre, may, under section 26, sub-section (3) of section 28, sub‑section (1) of section 29, sub‑section (2) of section 32 and sub‑section (1) of section 33 read with clause (b) of section 40 of the Act, give such directions, as it may consider appropriate for maintaining the availability of the transmission system of a Transmission Licensee and the Transmission Licensee shall duly comply with all such directions.
(2) The Appropriate Commission, on an application filed by the National Load Despatch Centre, the Regional Load Despatch Centre or the State Load Despatch Centre and after hearing the Transmission Licensee, if satisfied that the Transmission Licensee has persistently failed to maintain the availability of the transmission system, may issue such directions to the National Load Despatch Centre, the Regional Load Despatch Centre or the State Load Despatch Centre to take control of the operations of the transmission system of such Transmission Licensee for such period and on such terms, as the Commission may decide.
(3) The direction under sub‑rules (1) and (2) above shall be without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against the Transmission Licensee under other provisions of the Act.

6. The surcharge under section 38.—The surcharge on transmission charges under section 38, the manner of progressive reduction of such surcharge and the manner of payment and utilization of such surcharge to be specified by the Central Commission under sub‑clause (ii) of clause (d) of sub‑section (2) of section 38 shall be in accordance with surcharge on the charges for wheeling, the manner of progressive reduction of such surcharge and the manner of payment and utilization of such surcharge as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission of the State in which the consumer is located under sub‑section (2) of section 42 of the Act.

7. Consumer Redressal Forum and Ombudsman.—(1) The distribution licensee shall establish a Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers under sub‑section (5) of section 42 which shall consist of officers of the licensee. The Appropriate Commission shall nominate one independent member who is familiar with the consumer affairs: Provided that the manner of appointment and the qualification and experience of the persons to be appointed as member of the Forum and the procedure of dealing with the grievances of the consumers by the Forum and other similar matters would be as per the guidelines specified by the State Commission.
(2) The Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission under sub‑section (6) of section 42 of the Act shall be such person as the State Commission may decide from time to time.
(3) The Ombudsman shall consider the representations of the consumers consistent with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Regulations made hereunder or general orders or directions given by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission in this regard before settling their grievances.
(4) (a) The Ombudsman shall prepare a report on a six monthly basis giving details of the nature of the grievances of the consumer dealt by the Ombudsman, the response of the Licensees in the redressal of the grievances and the opinion of the Ombudsman on the Licensee’s compliance of the standards of performance as specified by the Commission under section 57 of the Act during the preceding six months.(b) The report under sub‑clause (a) above shall be forwarded to the State Commission and the State Government within 45 days after the end of the relevant period of six months.

8. Tariffs of generating companies under section 79.—The tariff determined by the Central Commission for generating companies under clause(a) or (b) of sub‑section (1) of section 79 of the Act shall not be subject to re‑determination by the State Commission in exercise of functions under clauses(a) or (b) of sub‑section (1) of section 86 of the Act and subject to the above the State Commission may determine whether a Distribution Licensee in the State should enter into Power Purchase Agreement or procurement process with such generating companies based on the tariff determined by the Central Commission.

9. Inter‑State trading licence.—A licence issued by the Central Commission under section 14 read with clause (e) of sub‑section(1) of section 79 of the Act to an electricity trader for inter‑state operations shall also entitle such electricity trader to undertake purchase of electricity from a seller in a State and resell such electricity to a buyer in the same State, without the need to take a separate licence for intra‑State trading from the State Commission of such State.

10. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.—In terms of sub‑section (2) of section 111 of the Act, the appeal against the orders passed by the adjudicating officer or the appropriate commission after the coming into force of the Act may be filed within forty-five days from the date, as notified by the Central Government, on which the Appellate Tribunal comes into operation.

11. Jurisdiction of the courts.—The jurisdiction of courts other than the special courts shall not be barred under sub‑section(1) of section 154 till such time the special court is constituted under sub‑section (1) of section 153 of the Act.

12. Cognizance of the offence—(1) The police shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act on a complaint in writing made to the police by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them in this regard or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of Licensee or a generating company, as the case may be.
(2) The police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with the general law applicable to the investigation of any complaint. For the purposes of investigation of the complaint the police shall have all the powers as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3) The police shall, after investigation, forward the report along with the complaint filed under sub‑clause (1) to the court for trial under the Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub‑clauses (1), (2) and (3) above, the complaint for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act may also be filed by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of Licensee or a generating company, as the case may be directly in the appropriate court.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every special court may take cognizance of an offence referred to in sections 135 to 139 of the Act without the accused being committed to it for trial.
(6) The cognizance of the offence under the Act shall not in any way prejudice the actions under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

13. Issue of orders and practice directions.—The Central Government may from time to time issue orders and practice directions in regard to the implementation of these rules and matters incidental or ancillary thereto as the Central Government may consider appropriate.

02/02/2023 at 09:53 #122527

advtanmoy
Keymaster

Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at stake

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Nigam v. Al Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd.,(2006) 13 SCC 382 as under:

(r) Electricity is certainly goods which affects public interest [Ref: All India Power Engineers Federation & Ors v Sasan Power Limited, (2017) 1 SCC 487] The provision in the National Tariff Policy is consistent with the above principle of law, and it cannot be termed as bad in law.

(s) In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Solar Semiconductor Power Co. (India) (P) Ltd., (2017) 16 SCC 498 has held as under:

37. This Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at stake. The interest of consumers, as an objective, can be clearly ascertained from the Act. The Preamble of the Electricity Act mentions “protecting interest of consumers” and Section 61(d) requires that the interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded when the appropriate Commission specifies the terms and conditions for determination of tariff. Under Section 64 read with Section 62, determination of tariff is to be made only after considering all suggestions and objections received from the public. Hence, the generic tariff once determined under the statute with notice to the public can be amended only by following the same procedure. Therefore, the approach of this Court ought to be cautious and guarded when the decision has its bearing on the consumers.

02/02/2023 at 10:14 #122528

advtanmoy
Keymaster

Unauthorised use of Electricity and Assessment

[U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – vs. – Anis Ahmad]

(2013) 8 SCC 491

Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the assessing officer to make assessment in case of “unauthorized use of electricity”.

It provides that if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity”, he shall assess the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefitted by such use, the Section reads as under:

“126.Assessment.- (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.

(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under subsection (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.

(4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him.

(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.

(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to (twice) the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5).

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-

(a) “ assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;

(b) “ unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity –

i) by any artificial means; or

ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or

iii) through a tampered meter; or

iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or

v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.”

30. Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126. A separate provision of appeal to the appellate authority has been prescribed under Section 127 so that any person aggrieved by the final order made under Section 126, may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal, which reads as under:

127-Appeal to appellate authority – (1) Any person aggrieved by the final order made under section 126 may, within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed.

(2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub-section shall be entertained unless an amount equal to half of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal.

(3) The appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the assessing officer and the appellant.

(4) The order of the appellate authority referred to in sub- section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be final.

(5) No appeal shall lie to the appellate authority referred to in sub –section (1) against the final order made with the consent of the parties.

(6) When a person defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed amount, shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days from the date of order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of sixteen per cent per annum compounded every six months.” Therefore, it is clear that after notice of provisional assessment to the person indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity”is a “Quasi Judicial” decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” under Section 2(1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

02/02/2023 at 10:22 #122529

advtanmoy
Keymaster

If Offence u/s 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 has been committed the offender would be excluded from the purview of ‘consumer’

[U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – vs. – Anis Ahmad]

(2013) 8 SCC 491

The distribution licensee has disconnected the electric line of respondent on the allegation of theft of electrical energy and lodged a complaint for which one specific case under Section 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 was registered against the respondent. Whether the respondent has been convicted or acquitted is not material but when an offence under Section 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 has been committed by the respondent, he would be excluded from the purview of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Moreover, when the respondent has suppressed the factum of liability in payment of Rs. 1,89,000/- has outstanding bills, he also cannot claim himself as ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

In a case, reported in [U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – vs. – Anis Ahmad-(2013) 8 SCC 491 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing over the matter in Paragraph-47 has held:

          “(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of ‘service’ as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or ‘complaint’ as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          (ii) A ‘complaint’ against the assessment made by Assessing Officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.

          (iii)   The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to ‘unfair trade practice’ or a ‘restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider’; or ‘if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service’; or ‘hazardous service’; or ‘the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law'”.

          Now, Section 127 of the Electricity Act provides for an appeal by any person aggrieved by an order of Assessing Officer to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of order. It indicates that the respondent had an opportunity to prefer an appeal against the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. However, the respondent/complainant did not avail that opportunity and remained silent as to payment of outstanding of bills.
Author

Posts

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 13 total)

1 2 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Shamim Ahmed And Ors., Haradhan vs State And Ors (Calcutta High Court-04/04/2003)

Balchand Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Narcotics Control Bureau vs Krishan Lal And Others

CONSUMER ISSUES IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTRICITY ACT

Compensation

Connection : Non-release of: No Discrimination by Showing Preference

Delay in Replacement of Transformer : Deficiency in Service

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY : Feeder not Installed : Deficiency in Service

ELECTRICITY TARIFF

ELECTROCUTION : Compensation Granted

EVIDENCE : Burden of Proving Fact

EXECUTION ; Continuation of Compliant : Jurisdiction to Proceed with the Execution Proceedings

Proceedings : Recovery of Money

EX-PARTE

NIKSAN v. STATE OF HARYANA

Punjab & Haryana High Court

THEFT OF ELECTRICITY WAS PROVED BY EVIDENCE

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Petitioner vs Mohan Lal

The Electricity Rules, 2005

Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at stake

Unauthorised use of Electricity and Assessment

If Offence u/s 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 has been committed the offender would be excluded from the purview of ‘consumer’

You may have missed

Disqualification Notice issued by LS Secretariat to Rahul Gandhi MP Wayanand Parliamentary Constituency (24/03/2023)

Purnesh Ishvarbhai Modi vs Rahul Gandhi (23/03/2023)

Report on Political Developments – Communist Party of India (Marxist) – 29/01/2023

Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Metromedia CMR inc (17/02/2021)