SHAUKAT ALI Versus State
This is a criminal petition filed by Shaukat Ali seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 1436 registered under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910, on the allegation of tampering with an electricity meter. The core legal question before the court was whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when mandatory procedural requirements, such as issuing a show-cause notice and sending the meter for laboratory verification, were allegedly violated by the complainant authorities prior to criminal registration. The Lahore High Court held that failure by the electricity officials to fulfill mandatory statutory requirements under Section 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910, coupled with the petitioner's deposit of outstanding bills under protest, warranted the confirmation of bail. The court laid down the principle that prior compliance with mandatory procedural prerequisites, including notice and technical verification, is essential before initiating criminal proceedings for electricity meter tampering.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when mandatory requirements of issuing a show-cause notice under the Electricity Act, 1910 are not fulfilled before registering a criminal case?
- Are electricity officials required to send a suspected tampered meter to the laboratory for verification before initiating criminal proceedings?
- Does depositing outstanding electricity bills under protest influence the grant of pre-arrest bail in meter tampering cases?
- Section 39-A, Electricity Act 1910
- Section 20, Electricity Act 1910
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.