# Devendra Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 712
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-04
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 551 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53256
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Electricity Act, 2003
- Sections 135 & 149 - Against summon
order - Quashing of - Applicant challenged
proceedings which is primarily based on
procedural illegality of implicating him in
capacity of 'Manager' and instituting FIR
against Institution under Electricity Act,
2003
-
Such
prosecution
is
not
maintainable, as applicable provision is
Section
149
of
Act,
which
governs
offences committed by group of person or
association
of
individual,
such
as
Committee of Management that runs
educational
institution,
also
covers
offences under Sections 135, 136, and 138
- Hence, FIRs against such institution
must proceed under Section 149 alone -
Cognizance
order
dated
02.05.2024,
summoning
applicant
as
Manager
of
institution, is unsustainable as it ignores
mandatory application of Section 149, and
therefore quashed. (Para 6, 11, 14)

Application allowed. (E-13)

## Text

712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Order 21 Rule 35 which prescribes
for removal of any person who is bound by
the decree.

8. Considering and following the said
judgments, the submissions made by the
counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance
and are accepted. It is also to be noticed in
the present case that the respondent tenant,
having failed to establish any of his
defenses as taken in reply to the SCC Suit,
has tried one after the other tricks to avoid
execution. The proceedings under Order 21
Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC were not
maintainable at his instance and were
nothing but an abuse of the process of law,
as such, the Executing Court has erred in
directing for framing of issues.

9. Thus, the order dated 20.02.2024
passed by the Executing Court as well as
the application filed under Order 21 Rule
97, 98 and 101 CPC deserves to be quashed
and is accordingly quashed.

10. The Executing Court is directed to
execute the decree within a period of two
months as held in the case of Periyammal
(dead) (supra). The executing court shall
proceed to ensure that the vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit property
shall be handed over to the petitioner as a
decree holder and if necessary, with the aid
of the police. The said exercise shall be
concluded within a period of two months
from today.

11. The writ petition stands allowed in
terms of the said order.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 712
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 551 of 2025

Devendra Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Narendra Kumar Tiwari

Criminal Law - Indian Electricity Act, 2003
- Sections 135 & 149 - Against summon
order - Quashing of - Applicant challenged
proceedings which is primarily based on
procedural illegality of implicating him in
capacity of 'Manager' and instituting FIR
against Institution under Electricity Act,
2003
-
Such
prosecution
is
not
maintainable, as applicable provision is
Section
149
of
Act,
which
governs
offences committed by group of person or
association
of
individual,
such
as
Committee of Management that runs
educational
institution,
also
covers
offences under Sections 135, 136, and 138
- Hence, FIRs against such institution
must proceed under Section 149 alone -
Cognizance
order
dated
02.05.2024,
summoning
applicant
as
Manager
of
institution, is unsustainable as it ignores
mandatory application of Section 149, and
therefore quashed. (Para 6, 11, 14)

Application allowed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

Order on Exemption Application
No. Nil of 2025

1. Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel appearing for opposite
party nos. 2 and 3 preferred counter
affidavit along with exemption application,
4 All. Devendra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
713
which is taken on record, for seeking
exemption of personal appearance of the
Officer who has been directed to appear in
person vide order dated 09.01.2025,
reasons mentioned in the application
appears as justified.

2. Exemption Application is hereby
allowed.

3. Officer concerned is hereby
exempted from personal appearance.

Order on Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned
AGA for the State.

2. The entire proceeding has been put
under challenge through instant application
precisely on the grounds that the FIR which
has been lodged at Case Crime No. 0215 of
2019 under Section 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act of 2003') and after conducting
detailed investigation, chargesheet has been
preferred on dated 24.06.2020, whereupon
cognizance of offence has been taken up by
learned Court of Additional District and
Session Judge, Court No. 9, Prayagraj on
dated 02.05.2024 in pursuance to Section
135 of the Act of 2003.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the FIR has been lodged
against an Institution namely, Raj Narayan
Pandey, P.G. College, Berui, Garapur,
Tharwai, Prayagraj under Section 135 of
the Act of 2003, but the same is contrary to
the Act of 2003, wherein specific provision
for
offence,
if
any,
committed
by
companies which is further explained under
Section 149(2)(a) of the Act of 2003 that
'Company' means a body corporate and
includes a firm or other association of
individuals; and under Section 149(2)(b) of
the Act of 2003 that 'Director', in relation to
a firm, means a partner in the firm.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that Section 135 of the
Act of 2003, wherein the applicant has
been implicated solely deals with the theft
of electricity if made by any individual,
since the group of person or association has
been clearly defined under Section 149 of
the Act of 2003.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that chargesheet preferred by
concerned investigating officer by way of
implicating Devendra Pandey being the
Manager of Raj Narayan Pandey, P.G.
College,
Berui,
Garapur,
Tharwai,
Prayagraj which clearly shows that the
implication of applicant is only being the
Deputy Manager'of the Institution which is
clarified with the certificate issued by the
Registrar Society of Registration which has
been renewed from time to time and the
same has been extended till 15.12.2025,
wherein name of applicant has been
reflected
at
serial
no.
4
and
the
responsibility has been mentioned as 'UpMantri'.

6. The arguments raised by learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
regarding
challenging the entire proceeding is solely
based upon the procedure adopted by the
prosecution by way of implicating the
applicant under the capacity of 'Manager'
and institution of FIR against the Institution
i.e. Raj Narayan Pandey, P.G. College,
Berui,
Garapur,
Tharwai,
Prayagraj,
specifically under Section 135 of the Act of
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2003, which is not maintainable since the
provision contained and mandated as per
law is only the Section 149 of the Act of
2003, which deals with the offence, if any,
committed by group of persons, association
of individuals etc and the educational
institution
is
undisputedly
run
by
Committee of Management (group of
persons, associations).

7. Per contra, Sri Narendra Kumar
Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the offence of
theft is defined under Section 135 of the
Act of 2003 only and if in any case, the
contention as raised by learned counsel for
the applicant may be admitted, the
authorities concerned shall be debarred
from taking any request for compounding
the offence in pursuance to Section 152 of
the Act of 2003, wherein the offence of
theft is compoundable by way of paying the
dues along with compounding fee. It is
further submitted by Sri Narendra Kumar
Tiwari that the offence of electricity theft is
available only under Section 135 of the Act
of 2003 and not under Section 149 of the
Act of 2003 and as such if in any case, the
FIR has to be instituted i.e. only under
Section 135 of the Act of 2003 and
implication under Section 149 of the Act of
2003 will not be attracted at the time of
institution of FIR against company/group
of association of individuals/group of
certain persons associated.

8. After hearing the rival submissions
extended by learned counsel for the parties,
it is necessary to examine the crystal clear
wordings mentioned under Section 135 of
the Act of 2003 which is reproduced here
below:-

"Section
135.
Theft
of
Electricity- (1) Whoever, dishonestly,--(a)
taps, makes or causes to be made any
connection with overhead, underground or
under water lines or cables, or service
wires, or service facilities of a licensee or
supplier, as the case may be; or

(b) tampers a meter, installs or
uses a tampered meter, current reversing
transformer, loop connection or any other
device or method which interferes with
accurate or proper registration, calibration
or metering of electric current or otherwise
results in a manner whereby electricity is
stolen or wasted; or

(c) damages or destroys an
electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or
wire or causes or allows any of them to be
so damaged or destroyed as to interfere
with the proper or accurate metering of
electricity; or

(d) uses electricity through a
tampered meter; or

(e)
uses
electricity
for
the
purpose other than for which the usage of
electricity was authorised, so as to abstract
or consume or use electricity shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years or with
fine or with both:

Provided that in a case where the
load abstracted, consumed, or used or
attempted
abstraction
or
attempted
consumption or attempted use-- (i) does not
exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on
first conviction shall not be less than three
times the financial gain on account of such
theft of electricity and in the event of
second or subsequent conviction the fine
imposed shall not be less than six times the
financial gain on account of such theft of
electricity;

(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine
imposed on first conviction shall not be less
than three times the financial gain on
account of such theft of electricity and in
the
event
of
second
or
subsequent
4 All. Devendra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
715
conviction,
the
sentence
shall
be
imprisonment for a term not less than six
months, but which may extend to five years
and with fine not less than six times the
financial gain on account of such theft of
electricity:

Provided further that in the event
of second and subsequent conviction of a
person
where
the
load
abstracted,
consumed,
or
used
or
attempted
abstraction or attempted consumption or
attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such
person shall also be debarred from getting
any supply of electricity for a period which
shall not be less than three months but may
extend to two years and shall also be
debarred from getting supply of electricity
for that period from any other source or
generating station:

Provided also that if it is proved
that any artificial means or means not
authorised by the Board or licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, exist for the
abstraction,
consumption
or
use
of
electricity by the consumer, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that
any abstraction, consumption or use of
electricity has been dishonestly caused by
such consumer.

(1A) Without prejudice to the
provisions of this Act, the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, may, upon
detection of such theft of electricity,
immediately disconnect the supply of
electricity:

Provided that only such officer of
the licensee or supplier, as authorised for
the
purpose
by
the
Appropriate
Commission or any other officer of the
licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of
the rank higher than the rank so authorised
shall
disconnect the
supply
line
of
electricity:

Provided further that such officer
of the licensee or supplier, as the case may
be, shall lodge a complaint in writing
relating to the commission of such offence
in police station having jurisdiction within
twenty-four hours from the time of such
disconnection:

Provided also that the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or
payment of the assessed amount or
electricity charges in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, shall, without
prejudice to the obligation to lodge the
complaint as referred to in the second
proviso to this clause, restore the supply
line of electricity within forty-eight hours of
such deposit or payment.]

(2) 2 [Any officer of the licensee
or supplier as the case may be, authorised]
in this behalf by the State Government may-
-(a) enter, inspect, break open and search
any place or premises in which he has
reason to believe that electricity 3 [has
been or is being], used unauthorisedly;

(b) search, seize and remove all
such devices, instruments, wires and any
other facilitator or article which 1 has
been, or is being, used for unauthorised use
of electricity;

(c) examine or seize any books of
account or documents which in his opinion
shall be useful for or relevant to, any
proceedings in respect of the offence under
sub-section (1) and allow the person from
whose custody such books of account or
documents are seized to make copies
thereof or take extracts therefrom in his
presence.

(3) The occupant of the place of
search or any person on his behalf shall
remain present during the search and a list
of all things seized in the course of such
search shall be prepared and delivered to
such occupant or person who shall sign the
list:

Provided that no inspection,
search and seizure of any domestic places
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or domestic premises shall be carried out
between sunset and sunrise except in the
presence of an adult male member
occupying such premises.

(4) The provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
relating to search and seizure shall apply,
as far as may be, to searches and seizure
under this Act."

9. Section 149 of the Act of 2003
which is also reproduced here below:-

"Section
149.
Offences
by
companies.- (1) Where an offence under
this Act has been committed by a company,
every person who at the time the offence
was committed was in charge of and was
responsible to the company for the conduct
of the business of the company, as well as
the company shall be deemed to be guilty of
having committed the offence and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and
punished
accordingly:Provided
that
nothing contained in this sub-section shall
render any such person liable to any
punishment if he proves that the offence
was committed without his knowledge or
that he had exercised all due diligence to
prevent the commission of such offence.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), where an
offence under this Act has been committed
by a company and it is proved that the
offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of or is attributable
to any neglect on the part of any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the
company, such director, manager, secretary
or other officer shall also be deemed to be
guilty of having committed such offence
and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.Explanation.-
For the purposes of this section-(a)
"company" means a body corporate and
includes a firm or other association of
individuals; and (b) "director", in relation
to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

10. At the same time the arguments
raised by Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2
and 3 regarding implementation of Section
152 of the Act of 2003 which might be in
shape of handcuffing the appropriate
authorities to proceed if in case any FIR
under Section 149 of the Act of 2003 will
be instituted, and as such Section 152 of the
Act of 2003 is also reproduced here below:-

"Section 152. Compounding Of
Offences- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(2
of
1974),
the
Appropriate Government or any officer
authorised by it in this behalf may accept
from any consumer or person who
committed or who is reasonably suspected
of having committed an offence of theft of
electricity punishable under this Act, a sum
of money by way of compounding of the
offence as specified in the Table below:

Nature
of
Service
Rate at which the sum of
money for compounding
to be collected per Kilowatt
(KW) /Horse Power (HP)
or part thereof for Low
Tension (LT) supply and
per
Kilo
Volt
Ampere
(KVA)
of
contracted
demand for High Tension
(HT)
1. Industrial
Service
twenty thousand rupees;
2.
Commercial
Service
ten thousand rupees;
3.
two thousand rupees;
4 All. Devendra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
717
Agricultural
Service
4.
Other
Services
four thousand rupees :

Provided that the Appropriate
Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, amend the rates specified
in the Table above.

(2) On payment of the sum of
money in accordance with sub-section (1),
any person in custody in connection with
that offence shall be set at liberty and no
proceedings shall be instituted or continued
against such consumer or person in any
criminal court.

(3) The acceptance of the sum of
money for compounding an offence in
accordance with sub-section (1) by the
Appropriate Government or an officer
empowered in this behalf shall be deemed
to amount to an acquittal within the
meaning of section 300 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(4) The Compounding of an
offence under sub-section (1) shall be
allowed only once for any person or
consumer."

11. By bare perusal of Section 135 of
the Act of 2003, although there is no
specific mention regarding individual or
group of person, it relates only to the theft
of electricity, but the clarification with
regard to individual and group of certain
people/association of individuals has been
clarified in later section available under
Section 149 of the Act of 2003 which is
crystal clear the offences by the companies.
The word 'offence' is available under
Chapter XIV of the Act of 2003, wherein
the 'theft of electricity' under Section 135
of the Act of 2003 and 'theft of electric
lines and materials' under Section 136 of
the Act of 2003 are the offences which is
further dealt under Section 138 of the Act
of 2003 also and as such the offences
mentioned under three sections i.e. Sections
135, 136 and 138 of the Act of 2003 are
broadly mentioned only in one word under
Section 149 of the Act of 2003 i.e.
'offences' which is plural in nature and
capturing all the offences mentioned prior
to Section 149 of the Act of 2003. The
formation of the Act introduced by the
legislation is almost crystal clear, in each
and every law which has to be read from 'A
to Z/1 to 100'. The reproduction of the
same words need not to be dealt in each
and every section and being the student of
law, it is to be onus and duty of every
person who is reading fine thread lines of
the law available in the Act has to be
carefully read in ascending order. The word
'offences' which is plural under Section 149
of the Act of 2003 deals with all the
offences mentioned prior to Section 149 of
the Act of 2003 which is available under
Sections 135, 136 and 138 of the Act of
2003, meaning thereby the implication of
companies/body corporate includes a firm
or other association of individuals which is
fully applicable in the instant matter that
once an FIR has been lodged against an
Institution which comes under the category
of association of individuals directly attract
Section 149 of the Act of 2003 only.

12. So far as the argument raised by
Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned
counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3
regarding impediment to exceed with
Section 152 of the Act of 2003 is
concerned, the same is not available and
Section 152 of the Act of 2003 that the
same shall be applicable only in respect of
Section 135 of the Act of 2003. If that be
so, the other sections mentioned as Sections
136 and 138 of the Act of 2003 shall be out
of the ambit of Section 152 of the Act of
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2003. The scope available for proceeding
under Section 152 of the Act of 2003
attracts all the sections wherein the offence
has been mentioned in the the Act of 2003
precisely under Sections 135, 136, 138 as
well as 149 of the Act of 2003 also.

13. The institution of the FIR under
Section 135 of the Act of 2003 was not inconsonance with mandate of law and
proceed further in shape of preferring
charge-sheet against the alleged Managerapplicant
before
concerned
Court,
specifically under Section 135 of the Act
of 2003, whereupon cognizance has been
taken up by learned court concerned is
also not sustainable in the eye of law.

14. In view of aforementioned facts
and circumstances, once the implication
of the applicant being the 'Manager' of
the Institution against which an FIR has
been instituted is contrary to all cannons
of legality and the attraction of Section
149 of the Act of 2003 has not been dealt
with by learned court concerned while
passing order dated 02.05.2024 through
which cognizance of offence has been
taken up while issuing summons to the
applicant, the same is deserves to be
quashed.

15. In the light of aforementioned
discussions,
the
entire
proceedings
arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of
2019 under Section 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 2003 are hereby quashed
and set-aside.

16. The instant application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. stands allowed accordingly.

17. However, it is made clear that
this order will not preclude the authorities
concerned to proceed a fresh, if required
against the applicant under specific sections
available under the Indian Electricity Act,
2003.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 718
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3099 of 2024

Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, G.A., Sri Sunil Vashishth

(A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 - Sections 138 & 143 -
Dismissal
of
complaint
for
want
of
prosecution - Reference to Larger Bench
on maintainability of revision vs. appeal -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Sections 203, 204 , 256(1), 378(4) & 397 -
Whether dismissal of complaint before
issuance of summons amounts to acquittal
- Where no summoning order under
Section 204 Cr.P.C. is passed, dismissal of
complaint is under Section 203 Cr.P.C.,
and not an acquittal under Section 256(1)
Cr.P.C. - Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. not
applicable
where
complaint
dismissed
prior to summoning stage under Section
203 Cr.P.C. - appeal under Section 378(4)
Cr.P.C. does not lie where complaint
dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. - only
remedy is revision - complaint dismissed
before summons, pre-cognizance stage -
Reference not answered as foundational
facts did not attract the legal issue -
Complaint dismissed under Section 203