# Loknath v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 14 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-01-24 - **Bench:** Vishnu Chandra Gupta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/loknath-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-42469 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482application against conditional bail order-offence under section 135 Electricity Act punishable with 7 years rigorous imprisonment-does not fall within the ambit of Section 437 (3)- condition to deposit Rs. 50,000-heldwithout jurisdiction-technical objection for taking recourse of section 439 (b)- not sustainable-order passed-without jurisdiction-can be interfered by exercising power under Section 482. Held: Para-11 In view of Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C., the imposition of condition of deposit of money in cases of those offences which are punishable less than 7 years of imprisonment would not be permissible. Hence, the condition of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- while granting the bail to the petitioner would be improper. As the matter relates to jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order, so there shall be no impediment in passing the order by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for correcting the error. ## Text 14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J. Criminal Misc Case No. - 235 of 2013 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) Loknath ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narvind Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482application against conditional bail order-offence under section 135 Electricity Act punishable with 7 years rigorous imprisonment-does not fall within the ambit of Section 437 (3)- condition to deposit Rs. 50,000-heldwithout jurisdiction-technical objection for taking recourse of section 439 (b)- not sustainable-order passed-without jurisdiction-can be interfered by exercising power under Section 482. Held: Para-11 In view of Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C., the imposition of condition of deposit of money in cases of those offences which are punishable less than 7 years of imprisonment would not be permissible. Hence, the condition of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- while granting the bail to the petitioner would be improper. As the matter relates to jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order, so there shall be no impediment in passing the order by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for correcting the error. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Power Corporation who appeared on the request made by the Court and learned AGA. 2. In the present case accused petitioner moved an application for bail in an offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act (for short the Act). The bail was granted by the Special Court imposing a condition that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited within two months from the date of order passed by the Court. The accused in pursuance thereof submitted a bond filed under taking to deposit the aforesaid amount to the court. In terms of the bail order petitioner was released on bail. Now petitioner moved this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the condition imposed in the bail order. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned AGA that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for modification in order granting bail by subordinate court because for this purpose there is specific provision contained in Section 439 (b) Cr.P.C. and the remedy is available to the petitioner under the said provision. 4. I have gone through the provision contained under Section 439 (a) and (b) Cr.P.C. and is reproduce hereinbelow:- "439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.- (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct- 1 All] Loknath V. State of U.P. and another 15 (a) That any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: 5. Clause (a) of Sub Section 1 of Section 439 Cr.P.C. provides that if any person accused of an offence and is in custody be released on bail, and if offence is of the nature specified in sub section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it consider necessary for the purpose mentioned in sub section. Section 437 (3) is reproduce hereinbelow for ready reference:- "(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetement of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under Seb-section (1), [the Court shall impose the conditions,- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under the Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.]" 6. Sub section (3) of Section 437 provides that when accused commit an offence punishable within imprisonment which may extend to 7 years or more or of an offence under chapter VI, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abatement or conspiracy for attempt to commit any such offence the court while releasing him on bail shall impose any condition as mentioned in sub clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3 of Sub-section 437. 7. Section 135 of the Act provides the maximum punishment for imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine. 8. Admittedly, the offence under Section 135 of the Act does not fall within the ambit of Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C. Hence, the condition imposed would be without jurisdiction. Moreover, there is nothing in special enactment, the Electricity Act 2003, that while releasing the accused condition may be imposed regarding deposit of the amount or any amount determined under Section 135 (1A) of the Act. 9. The amendment inserted in the Act in the year 2007 provides that in case of detection of theft of electricity, disconnection of supply of electricity shall immediately follow. It was also provided that officer of licencee or supplier duly 16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 authorized shall also lodge a complaint in writing of the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within 24 hours. It is also provided that the accused may compound the offence after depositing the amount as mentioned in last proviso of sub section (1) of Section 135 (1A). Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure to be adopted by the Special Court and also confer powers upon the Special Court dealing with the trial of offence under Electricity Act (Section 135 to 140 and 150 of the Act). Sub section 4 of Section 154 of the Act provides that Special Court shall determine the civil liability against the consumer or a person in term of money for the theft of energy. The amount of civil liability so determine shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court. Sub section 6 of Section 154 of the Act provides that while determining the civil liability by Special Court finally the amount if any deposited by the consumer will subject to adjustment. 10. It is true that in this case the charge sheet has been submitted before the Special Court but determination of civil liability by special court has not yet been finalised. 11. In view of Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C., the imposition of condition of deposit of money in cases of those offences which are punishable less than 7 years of imprisonment would not be permissible. Hence, the condition of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- while granting the bail to the petitioner would be improper. As the matter relates to jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order, so there shall be no impediment in passing the order by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for correcting the error. 12. Even if provisions to challenge the condition imposed by special court is available to the petitioner in view of Section 439 Cr.P.C. that would also not create any impediment in setting aside the condition of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- imposed in bail order because the petitioner may seek relief under Section 439 Cr.P.C. from the High Court. In view of above, if a petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. then the court is not precluded to pass the order keping in view the provision contained in Section 439 Cr.P.C. When matter relates to illegal exercise of jurisdiction by any subordinate court, it would be the duty of the High Court to exercise power of superintendence to ensure that cases should properly be disposed of by the courts keeping in view of the statutory provision contained in any enactment. 13. This Court has inherent power to make such orders necessary to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this case, if condition imposed of depositing Rs. 50,000/- is not lifted, it will not only adversely effect the statutory rights of petitioner but it also amounts to failure on part of this Court to correct the wrong committed by subordinate court. 14. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of legal aspect of the matter,, this petition deserves to be allowed. 15. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the special court regarding deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as condition for grant of bail to the petitioner included in the impugned order of bail is set aside. The accused will remain on bail even without deposit of the aforesaid amount during trial. 1 All] National Insurance Co. Limited, Lucknow V. Smt. Sahidul Nisha and others 17 16. It is also provided that this order will not create any impediment in deciding the civil liability by the special court under Section 154, sub clause 5 of the Act and to recover the same from the petitioner in accordance with law. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVILSIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.01.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI-II, J. First Appeal From Order No. 465 Of 2004 National Insurance Co. Limited, through Regional Manager, Regional Office, LIC Building, Nawal Kishore Road, Lucknow ...Appellant Versus Smt. Sahidul Nisha and others ...Respondents Motor Vehicle Act 1988, Section 173appeal against award by accident tribunal-appeal by insurance company on ground the vehicle being driven by such driver having no valid driving license-before the tribunal the owner of vehicle categorically stated that he has no knowledge about possessing no valid driving license by the driver-insurance company not adduced any evidence controverting this fact-held-tribunal rightly shifted the burden upon the insurance company-no interference called for-appeal dismissed. Held: Para-19 The Learned Tribunal has held that Insurance Company has not given any evidence to show that truck owner was having knowledge that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. In view of this, the Tribunal has rightly held that the compensation amount is to be paid by the opposite party no.3, National Insurance Company(appellant). Case Law discussed: 2004 (3) Supreme Court Cases page 297 (Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi-II, J.) 1. Heard Alka Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M.C.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by National Insurance Company Ltd, against the award dated 11.5.2004 passed in Claim Petition No. 192 of 2001 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2 Sultanpur, by which learned claims tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,26,235/-(one lakh twenty six thousand two hundred thirty five) as compensation for the injuries received by Smt. Sahidul Nisha in a Motor Accident. 3. The claim petition was filed on the ground that claimant had gone to Ajmersharif from Village Nizam Patti Kasba, Sultanpur on Bus No.UHU 9172. When the bus reached in District-Alwar (Rajsthan) near Hotel Shiva Overseas Dakhim Kejil in Bahroad on 1.10.2000 at about 4.30 a.m. truck No. H.R.38/A-8565 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the bus from the rear side and due to which the bus turned turtle and several passengers in the bus including the claimant received serious injuries. First Information Report was lodged by owner of the bus Sri Ramraj Verma on 1.10.2000 at about 5.00 a.m. in Police Station-Bahroad, District-Alwar which was registered as Crime No. 460 of 2000. The claimant was taken to District