2026:JHHC:17575 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1313 of 2017 -------- Dr. Hari Krishan Budhia, son of Late R.K. Budhia, aged about 78 years, resident of Near Surendranath School, Hazaribagh Road, P.O.-G.P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anuj Kumar, son of not known, resident of not known, working for gain as Executive Engineer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh … … Opp. Parties ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Gorung, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Advocate Mr. Neyaba Ahab, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the O. P. No.2 : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 13.05.2026 Pronounced on 17/06/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22.08.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, (Special Judge), Ramgarh, in G.R. Case No. 122 of 2012, whereby and whereunder an application under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of petitioner from the offences alleged against him in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 17 of 2012 dated 13.01.2012, registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Clause 15.8 of the Electric Supply Code Regulations, 2005, has been 2026:JHHC:17575 2 rejected by the learned Special Judge, Ramgarh. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the F.I.R. was instituted by one Anuj Kumar (the then Executive Engineer) D.V.C., Ramgarh, whereby it is reported that the M/s Bihar Foundry & Castings Limited, Marar gets electric supply from D.V.C. Sub Station, Ramgarh at 33 KV voltage. It is said that to record the electricity consumption, one meter is installed in the premises of the factory and another meter has been installed at D.V.C. Sub Station, Ramgarh for total consumption of the electricity, which is called check meter. The difference between reading of the check meter and those of all the consumers indicated electricity theft. It is alleged that from the month of July, 2011 to December, 2011, certain differences were noticed in the meter reading and in order to check the difference in the meter readings one testing team of Maithan conducted inspection of secondary circuit 33 KV CT and everything was found normal. The same team conducted primary circuit of 33 KV CT installed in M/s Bihar Foundry & Castings Limited by Omicron C.T. Analyzer and it was detected that ratio between C.T. and phase angle was high. Thereafter, on 22.11.2011 both C.T. were changed by new ones and the old defective C.T.s’ were sent for analyses by Inquiry Department, Crital Maithen. When the C.T. was opened, it was found that primary circuits were caused short circuit in order to reduce actual meter reading. It is alleged that since both C.T.s’ were installed in closed premises of the consumer, therefore, in order to record less consumption, the primary circuit has been short and it was found that it was a case of electricity theft. At the instance of D.V.C. 2026:JHHC:17575 3 Commercial Department, Kolkata, the electric supply was stopped on 12.01.2012 to the M/s Bihar Foundry & Castings Limited. It is alleged that a loss of Rs.60,80,105/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Eighty Thousand One Hundred Five) has been sustained by the D.V.C. After getting the written report, Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 17 of 2012 dated 13.01.2012 was registered and after investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the accused petitioner. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court vide A.B.A. No. 1915 of 2013. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Special Judge on 11.08.2014. Substance of acquisition was also explained to the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act on 18.01.2017 and summons was issued against the witnesses. In the meantime, an application under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for stoppage of proceeding and discharge which has been rejected and assailed in this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points:- (a) Till October 2011, there was no dispute between the petitioner-company and the D.V.C. For the first time, the controversy began in the month of December, 2011. It is also submitted that till September, 2011, the energy charges were being levied in terms of joint meter reading of M1 meter. It is further stated that for the month of November, 2011, the energy charges was 13,48,408 units. Although, the energy consumption recorded in the meter was 8,83,300 units and the company raised objection since the differential amount was approximately 3,00,000. 2026:JHHC:17575 4 (b) The electric connection of the company was disconnected on 12.01.2012 without any previous information to the representative of the company against the rule and norms, then the company approached to Hon’ble High Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide W.P.(C) No. 203 of 2012, but before the said writ application could have been taken up for hearing the D.V.C. representative without any authority instituted the F.I.R., which was registered against the company for theft of electricity. Therefore, above writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. (c) The so-called seizure of material evidence as against the petitioner was purportedly carried out on 24.10.2011 and 22.11.2011. However, without assigning any reason for the delay, the F.I.R. for the first time has been lodged on 13.01.2012 that too after much delay as against the mandate of Clause 15.8 of the Supply Code Regulation which stipulates lodging of F.I.R. without 24 hours from the time of disconnection of electricity supply. (d) The respondent corporation has violated the provisions of Supply Code Regulation inasmuch as first of all before raising any demand a proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has to be initiated. (e) The difference in consumption as mentioned in the F.I.R. cannot be attributable to the petitioner and purported evidence as against the petitioner has to be sent to third party for testing and in which the petitioner necessarily has to be a party in terms of the mandatory provision envisaged under the Electricity Supply Code Amendment Regulations, 2010. 2026:JHHC:17575 5 (f) The F.I.R. was lodged against M.D. of the company without making the M/s Bihar Foundry & Castings Limited as party. However, Managing Director is not individually liable for payment of any electricity dues or any other charges. (g) To sum up, the Joint Test Report dated 24.10.2011 recorded no irregularity. There is absolute absence of any “perfected artificial means” of abstraction which is a mandatory pre-requisite to attract Section 135 of the Electricity Act. D.V.C. completely by passed the mandatory requirement of third party meter testing as mandated under Clause 15.8 of the Supply Code Regulation, 2010. There is no notification either by the State Government or the commission authorizing D.V.C. to lodge an F.I.R. under the Electricity Act, 2003, which is sine qua non for lodging F.I.R. The check meter for billing purpose is inappropriate which has been made basis for recording consumption of energy units against the petitioner. In the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is absolutely illegal, improper and incorrect and based upon non-consideration of relevant provisions of law. Therefore, fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner, it is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the substance of acquisition has already been explained to the accused petitioner whatever illegality or impropriety is taken as defence by the petitioner as pointed out in this revision application has to be considered on merits by the learned Trial Court. 2026:JHHC:17575 6 This revision is motivated only with causing delay in the proceeding and no such violation has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to stop the proceeding at this stage and discharge him from criminal liability. It is submitted that all the formal actions are taken under procedural safeguard and there is no violation of principles of natural justice in this case. Therefore, this revision is fit to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 7. The main question arises as to whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or incorrect and improper? 8. Before adverting to discuss on the above point, it is pertinent to extract the relevant provision of Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 281 of B.N.S.S. Act which reads as under: “258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.—In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.” 9. From bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that Section 258 Cr.P.C. applies where the case is instituted otherwise than 2026:JHHC:17575 7 upon complaint, the powers given to the Magistrate to stop the proceedings at any stage have to be sparingly used and that too, in exceptional or unusual circumstances attending the case in the normal course after explaining the substance of acquisitions in a summons case, the court has to proceed to take evidence of prosecution, if the accused did not plead guilty as per provision of Section 254 of the Cr.P.C. 10. In the instant case, no eye-witness has been examined by the prosecution till the filing of application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. by the accused. In my view, the exceptional circumstances for invoking the provision of Section 258 Cr.P.C. may arise in the cases in which not even a prima facie case is made out against the accused or the accusations may not actually constitute any offence or the prosecution may become invalid for not following a particular formality or on account of some technical defect in the prosecution, which is sufficient to vitiate the further proceedings of the case. 11. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon reported judgments in (i) M/s Dayal Steels Ltd. versus The State of Jharkhand & Others 2008 (2) JLJR 221 (ii) Jeewan Kumar Raut & Another versus C.B.I. (2009) 7 SCC 526 (iii) Binay Kumar Singh & Others versus The state of Bihar & Others dated 05.01.2011 (iv) M/s Stan Commodities versus J.S.E.B. & Others dated 12.03.2015 (v) M/s Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. versus J.U.V.N.L. & Others dated 05.09.2018. 12. I have gone through the above citations and don’t find any relevancy for application of provision of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in the 2026:JHHC:17575 8 instant case. 13. From perusal of impugned order also it appears that the learned Special Judge has considered all the above points taken by the petitioner in this revision and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and huge amount of electricity theft alleged to be committed by the respondent company did not found a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The subjective satisfaction of the learned Special Judge in proceeding with the case on the basis of producing evidence by the parties to arrive at logical conclusion does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 14. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 15. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent back immediately to the court concerned for further proceeding in the matter. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 17/06/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 19/06/2026