ORDER G. Malviya, J.
1. The petitioner M/s. Jhansi Concrete Products, Jhansi along with its partners has moved this petition under An. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the investigation pursuant to the first information report giving rise to Crime No. 245 of 1988 under Ss. 30/40/44 of the Electricity Act, P.S. Jhansi. As per allegations in the first information report, a flying squad of the Electricity Department on 22nd June, 1988, found the meter of the petitioners firm burnt and the electricity to the concern connected with the main line. As per allegations in the first information report the petitioners were guilty of theft of electricity making them liable to prosecution under Ss. 39/40/44 of the Electricity Act.
2. Shri Dharam Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although a bare perusal of the first information report may disclose an'offence, yet if the other attending circumstances are taken into consideration which according to him have been brought to the notice of this Court in the form of other annexures to the writ petition, then it would be evident that the petitioners are not guilty of having committed any offence at all. He referred to the letter by the Managing Partner of the petitioners firm dated 20th June, 1988 to S.D.0.11, E.D.S.D. Jhansi (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), which shows that the meter installed at the premises of the petitioners had got burnt and a request was made for direct connection to the factory till the replacement of the meter for which necessary charges as per rule were sought to be deposited. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is a photostat copy of the receipt issued by the U.P. Electricity Board showing that the petitioners on 20th June, 1988 made a deposit of a sum of Rs. 450/- on account of burnt meter. Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a letter dated 11-7-1988 from the S.D.O., Electricity Distribution Sub Division II, Jhansi to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jhansi, stating that on the deposit being made of Rs. 450/- on 20th June, 1988, the electricity connection was made directly to M/s. Jhansi Concrete Products, Jhansi, by the Junior Engineer on the request of the Executive Engineer. Although there seems to be no such request forthcoming from the side of the Executive Engineer, learned counsel still relied on a letter of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jhansi, dated 17th Sept. 1988, addressed to the Inspector of the Flying Squad, Kanpur Zone mentioning the fact that the direct supply of electricity to the petitioners firm had been made by the Junior Engineer on 20th June, 1988 after getting the deposit of Rs. 450/-, as it was permissible to provide direct supply up to a period of 15 days. The letter shows that the Executive Engineer wanted the flying squad to make inspection after informing the authorities of the Electricity Department in the relevant zone so that such action which may bring the Department in bad repute in the eye of public may not be repeated time and again.
3. Whether the flying squad should inform the Department people or not is a matter to be decided by the flying squad itself, as the object of the flying squad is to check such illegal connections which may have been made in connivance with the Department. However, if a valid deposit as contemplated under the Rules was made and if there was sanction for direct connection according to Rules as is claimed by the petitioner in this petition, it will be clear that the petitioner cannot be held to have committed any offence, as they were then not guilty of any theft of electricity who were consuming electricity in accordance with the Rules on payment of usual charges. However, this enquiry and investigation is not to be done by this Court. Investigation in this respect is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer after going through all these documents along with such other material as he may find relevant will be able to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were or were not guilty of having committed any offence. Once he finds the assertion of the petitioners to be correct as divulged in this petition, it will be his task to submit a final report in this case. If this Court was to interfere in the matter of investigation, the Investigating Officer will never be able to arrive at such a conclusion or to submit a final report. If the Investigating Officer finds the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the documents to be not genuine and finds a prima facie case against the petitioner, then he will be in a position to inform the concerned court that a case for trial of the petitioners has been made out on the basis of the charge and the evidence collected by him which he has to do in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that even if the petitioner's claim that they were not guilty of any offence is found correct by the Investigating Officer after due enquiry on the expiry of required period for investigation, they will unnecessarily have to go to court and apply for bail whereas in the end it may be found that such an exercise by him was not necessary. This certainly is an aspect which cannot be helped, inasmuch as every investigation in a serious criminal case or in any minor case can be ultimately lead to the conclusion that the accused in that case was not guilty. For the redress of such grievance there is provision for bail. The court on the evidence available to it at the stage of considering the bail matter finds out whether the persons should be released or not. If the assertion of the petitioners is correct, obviously the court concerned will have no hesitation in granting bail to the petitioners. But, this matter shall again be in the domain of the court which is considering the bail of the petitioners and cannot be gone into here in this Court under Art. 226 of the Con-stitution.
5. All that seems desirable is that if the petitioners surrender and move applications for bail before the appropriate authorities in the first hour of the working day, the said authorities shall dis-
pose of the bail application the same day. If for any reason the authorities may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail matter for another date, they should do so after obtaining personal bonds for the presence of the petitioners on the next date fixed by them in the bail matter on which date the bail application of the petitioners should be finally disposed of. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
6. Let a certified copy of this order may be furnished to the learned counsel for on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
7. Petition dismissed.