1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of applications, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
1.1. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15964/2008 has been preferred by the applicant-original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, being C.R. No. II 1304/2004 registered with GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone, Porbandar as well as to dismiss Special (Electricity) Case No. 56/2008 arising out of the aforesaid FIR pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Porbandar.
1.2. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11709/2008 has been preferred by the applicant-original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, being C.R. No. II 1302/2004 registered with GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone, Porbandar as well as to dismiss Special (Electricity) Case No. 48/2008 arising out of the aforesaid FIR pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Porbandar.
1.3. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13609/2008 has been preferred by the applicant-original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, being C.R. No. II 1203/2004 registered with GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone, Porbandar as well as to dismiss Special (Electricity) Case No. 53/2008 arising out of the aforesaid FIR pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Porbandar.
1.4. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15214/2008 has been preferred by the applicant-original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, being C.R. No. II 1303/2004 registered with GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone, Porbandar as well as to dismiss Special (Electricity) Case No. 39/2008 arising out of the aforesaid FIR pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Porbandar.
2. Respondent no. 2-original complainant-Pashchim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. has instituted/filed the impugned FIRs at GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone, Porbandar against the respective applicants-original accused for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder. So far as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15964/2008 is concerned, the impugned FIR has been filed for the offence alleged to have been committed on 18/12/2003 and the FIR has been lodged on 23/12/2004. So far as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11709/2008 is concerned the alleged date of the offence is 26/03/2004 and the FIR for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act has been lodged on 23/12/2004. So far as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13609/2008 is concerned, the date of the alleged offence is 27/10/2004 and the FIR for the same is filed lodged on 10/11/2004. So far as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15214/2008 is concerned, the date of the alleged offence is 17/12/2003 and the FIR has been lodged on 23/12/2004 and, therefore, it is an undisputed position that the date of the alleged offence in all the cases is prior to 10/12/2004 and, therefore, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective applicants has vehemently submitted relying upon the decision of this Court dated 08/08/2001 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6532/2009 and other allied matters that as the offences are alleged to have been committed prior to 10/12/2004 Complaint for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act could not have been filed by respondent no. 2-original complainant. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Plasto Processor & Anr. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 2005(2) GLR 993 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Torrent Power A.E.C. Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006(2) GLR 1580. It is submitted that considering the aforesaid decisions, the learned Single Judge has held that as the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 were not applicable to the State of Gujarat till 10/12/2004, for the alleged offence said to have been committed on 10/12/2004, the concerned electricity company-respondent no. 2-original complainant could not have filed the Complaint for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is alleged to have been committed on or before 10/12/2004 and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Mahendrabhai @ Manubhai Pragjibhai Bhindi Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6532/2009, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings against the respective applicants.
3. Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2-original complainant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11709/2008 and 13609/2008 and Ms. Maya Desai, learned advocate has appeared for Shri M.D. Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-original complainant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15214/2008.
4. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent no. 2-original complainant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15964/2008.
5. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the concerned original complainant are not in a position to dispute that the controversy raised in the present applications is squarely covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Mahendrabhai @ Manubhai Pragjibhai Bhindi (Supra). The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the concerned original complainant are also not in a position to show any contrary decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Mahendrabhai @ Manubhai Pragjibhai Bhindi (Supra). Under the circumstances, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original complainant have requested to pass an appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendrabhai @ Manubhai Pragjibhai Bhindi (Supra)(Supra).
6. Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP has requested to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. It is not in dispute that in all these cases, the impugned FIRs have been filed for the offence alleged to have been committed prior to 10/12/2004 and the respective FIRs have been filed on 23/12/2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 15964/2004, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11709/2008 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15214/2008 and on 10/11/2004 so far as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13609/2008.
8. Identical question came to be considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Mahendrabhai @ Manubhai Pragjibhai Bhindi (Supra) (Supra) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6532/2009 and other allied matters and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) as well as another decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Plasto Processor & Anr reported in 2005 (2) GLR 993 in similar set of facts and circumstances of the case where the criminal proceedings were initiated for the offences alleged to have been committed prior to 10/12/2004 the learned Single Judge has held that as the provision of the Electricity Act were not made applicable prior to 10/12/2004 Complaint for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act of 2003 is not maintainable. Under the circumstances, to continue the criminal proceedings against the respective applicants would be unnecessary harassment to them and the same shall be abuse of process of law and Court and, therefore, these are fit cases in which powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be exercised.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, all these applications are allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings against the respective applicants, being C.R. No. II 1304/2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15964/2008, C.R. No. II 1302/2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11709/2008, C.R. No. II 1203/2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13609/2008 and C.R. No. II 1303/2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15214/2008 all registered with GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone, Porbandar are hereby quashed and set aside so far as the respective applicants are concerned. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the concerned original complaint to initiate appropriate proceedings permissible under the law. As and when such proceedings are initiated the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the applications.
Direct service is permitted.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji