Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAUKAT ALI VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khurshid Anwar BhinderCh. Muhammad Mustafa
2008 Y L R 1977
2008 Y L R 1977
[Lahore]
Before Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J
SHAUKAT ALI---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1124-B of 2008, decided on 25th February, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Electricity Act (IX of 1910), Ss.20 & 39-A---Ad interim bail, confirmation of---Electric Supply Company officials had straightaway got a case registered against accused without inquiring into the matter---Neither any show-cause notice was served on accused nor electric Meter was sent to the Laboratory for verifying the fact whether the meter had been tampered with or not---Company officials had not fulfilled the mandatory requirements of law under S.20 of Electricity Act, 1910 for issuing a show-cause notice to accused before taking the action of registering the criminal case against him---Since accused had already deposited all the outstanding bills under protest and mandatory requirement of law had not been fulfilled by the Electric Supply Company officials before registration of criminal case against accused, there was no reason for not to confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused.
Ch. Muhammad Mustafa for Petitioner.
Naeem Tariq Sanghera, Dy. P.-G. for the State with Saeed, A.S.-I.
ORDER
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---Through the present petition, Shaukat Ali petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1436, dated 23-11-2007, registered under section 39-A of the Electricity Act at Police Station, North Cantt., Lahore.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he had tampered with the electricity meter and had reversed it and was, therefore, liable to commission of the offence under section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910.
3. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of bail before arrest before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who had granted him ad interim pre-arrest bail but subsequently his bail application was dismissed for his non-appearance before the Court on 26-1-2008, hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a mala fide on the part of the LESCO officials who had without inquiring into the matter straightaway got a case registered against the present petitioner. Neither any show-cause notice was served on him nor meter was sent to the Laboratory for verifying the fact whether the meter has been tampered with or not. Petitioner has already deposited outstanding bill under protest. He further submits that the petitioner has already joined the investigation.
5. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. has opposed the bail application and has directly attacked the conduct of the petitioner for his being absent at numerous occasions before the learned trial Court as he was absent on every date of hearing, therefore, he does not deserve the leniency of confirming ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. I am convicted that the LESCO officials have not fulfilled the mandatory requirements of law under section 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910 for issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner before taking the action of registering the criminal case against him. Even otherwise, whenever a complainant against the tampering of electricity meter is reported to the LESCO officials, they are required to issue show-cause notice and also send the tampered meter to the Laboratory for verifying the fact whether the meter was tampered with or not but in the instant case this has not been done by the LESCO officials. Reference is made to the cases of Naeem Oil Mills v. Water and Power Development Authority and others (1986 MLD 680), MEPCO through Chief Executive and another v. Advisory Board, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others (2005 MLD 328) and Amjad Hussain v. The State (2006 YLR 3242).
7. Since the petitioner has already deposited all the outstanding bills under protest and the mandatory requirement of law had not been fulfilled by the LESCO officials before registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, therefore, there is no reason not to confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner.
I, therefore, allow this petition and confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./S-38/L Bail confirmed.