HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33641 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vineet Pandey assisted by Sri Pranvesh, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and Sri N.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for Electricity Department. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S has been filed by applicant seeking for quashing of charge-sheet dated 22.03.2006, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.10.2006 and non-bailable warrant dated 09.06.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.77 of 2006 (State Vs. Nanhe Kesarwani) arising out of Case Crime No.54 of 2006, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, P.S. Colonelganj, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against present applicant on 18.02.2006 wherein it has been alleged that on conducting raid, applicant was found using electricity illegally. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against applicant under Section 135 of Electricity Act whereupon, learned court concerned took cognizance on 05.10.2006, which impugned the present application. 4. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the certified copy of the FIR, filed as Annexure- 2 to this application, and submitted that in the instant matter, raid was conducted by the officials of the Electricity Department on 16.02.2006, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 18.02.2006, which is clear cut violation of the second proviso to Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranvesh, Vineet Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narendra Kumar Tiwari Nanhe Lal Kesarwani .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) which provides for lodging FIR of such incident within twenty-four hour from the time of such disconnection. 5. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that in the instant matter, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence against the applicant in the year 2006 and since then about 19 years have been elapsed but till date even the charges have not been framed against the applicant, which is clear violation of right to speedy trial as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For substantiating his submissions, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgement rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.23675 of 2022 (Madan Mohan Saxena vs. State of U.P. & Others), decided on 19.01.2023, wherein it is clearly held that para-19 is quoted herein below:- "19. In case at hand, from the perusal of the record it appears that the inordinate delay in completion of the trial cannot be attributed to the accused applicant as order- sheet suggests that he is regularly attending the court either in person or through his counsel and trial of the case relates to Section 39/49B of Electricity Act, which cannot be said to be a heinous crime and trial of the same is pending since the year 2004 i.e. for last about 18 years and prosecution failed to provide any exceptional circumstance to condone such inordinate delay. Therefore, unexplained inordinate delay of 18 years should be termed as oppressive and unwarranted. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that fundamental right to speedy trial of applicant has been violated. " 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer as made in this application, but they could not dispute about the delay in lodging of the FIR as well as the violation of right to speedy trial as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Keeping in mind the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is being quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: "135-(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: NA528 No. 33641 of 2025 2 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:" 7. On bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is evident that FIR in such cases have to be lodged within twenty-four hour from the time of such disconnect. In the present case, admittedly the raid was conducted by the officials on 16.02.2006 and although the FIR should have been lodged on the very next day, but it was lodged after more than 24 hours, i.e., on 18.02.2006. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on this ground as well as on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant, cannot be allowed to proceed. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant application is allowed. Consequently, charge-sheet dated 22.03.2006, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.10.2006 and non-bailable warrant dated 09.06.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.77 of 2006 (State Vs. Nanhe Kesarwani) arising out of Case Crime No.54 of 2006, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, P.S. Colonelganj, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad, are hereby quashed. September 11, 2025 Saif NA528 No. 33641 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad