1. This quashment application has been filed to challenge the proceedings pending under section 39 of Electricity Act of 1910, read with section 14 of (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, in the Court of Special Magistrate, K. E. S. C., Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8th August, 1982, Abdul Rahim Samo, Executive Engineer of K.
3. E. S. C. Alongwith Supervisor Masood Parvez went to Muhammad Nagar, Landhi, Karachi and detected 18 un-authorised electricity cases and all the illegal service were connected through bracket and electricity was being used without meters. The persons concerned on enquiry failed to produce valid documents and sanction of their connections. From the verification of K. E. S. C.
4. Record it was found that no sanction was accorded by the K. E. S. C. Mr. Abdul Rahim Samo, lodged the report as stated The case is pending before the Special Magistrate, K. E. S. C., Karachi and some of the accused pleaded guilty and paid their fine. The case against the applicants is stated to be pending as they have not pleaded guilty. The case has proceeded and the witnesses have been examined.
5. The applicants filed an application under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. Which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 19th November, 1983 and they have now come against the order of the Special Magistrate who has refused to accept their application under section 249pA, Cr. P. C.
6. Mr. Gul Zaman, Advocate for the applicants contended that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person for offence under this act except by Government or Electricity Inspector or person aggrieved as contemplated under section 50 of the Electricity Act.
7. I have heard Mr. Khalid Ali for the K. E. S. C. He has submitted that Mr. Abdul Rahim Samo, is Engineer of the K. E. S. C. And compeptent to supervise and detect the illegal connections, therefore, there is no illegality in the proceedings and he is aggrieved person.
8. Mr. Gul Zaman, Advocate for the applicants has stated that Executive Engineer Mr. Abdul Rahim Samo is not competent to lodge the report. He has relied on the cases reported in 1977 P Cr. L J 109 and 1981 P Cr. L J 848.
9. Mr. A. A. Muhammadally, Addl. A.-G. For the State is also of the view that the Executive Engineer is not competent to file the complaint. He has cited two cases reported in PLD 1952 Lab. 369 and AIR 1935 Lab. 191 I have gone through the authorities. The case reported in 1977 P Cr. L J 109, it is distinguishable in that case S. H.O. Was complainant and it was rightly held that he was not competent to file a complaint but in this case Executive Engineer who is Officer of K. E. S. C. Is complainant. The case reported in 1981 P Cr. L J 484 is also distinguishable as pro-section initiated by a Line Superintendent, WAPDA who was not authorised to do so as provided under section 12/20 of the WAPDA Act. The case reported in AIR 1935 Lah. 191 is also distinguishable for the reason that in that case complaint was filed by Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board who had no authority from the Board to institute the proceedings. It is clearly mentioned in the evidence of Abdul Rahim Samo who has been examined by the trial Court that his duty is to check unauthorised connections and overloading and no receiving such information he checked and after giving chance to applicants to produce documents filed complaint of this case.
10. Mr. Gul Zaman has further contended that section 14 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, has also been applied in this case for which Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance.
11. The question arises whether Abdul Rahim Samo, Executive Engineer of K. E. S. C. Could be deemed as person aggrieved for the purpose of the offence alleged to have committed by the petitioners.
12. He is Officer Incharge of the K. E. S. C, and responsible for proper working in the area and specially has to check illegal connections.
13. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason how he cannot be a person aggrieved by theft of the energy. I refer a case of Nasim Ansari and another v. Crown , where it has been held that S. D. O. P.
14. W. D. Electricity be deemed to be an aggrieved party. So far second contention is concerned about the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of Hudood Ordinance in theft case, it is doubtful if the act alleged by the prosecution committed by the petitioner would amount to an offence under section 379, P. P. C. But even if they do so they are clearly covered by section 39 of the Electricity Act which reads as follows :- "Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Penal Code ; and the existence of artificial means for such abstractions shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstractions."
15. The petitioners are also being tried under section 39 of the Electricity Act.
16. I am of the opinion that there is no defect by taking cognizance of this case. For the reasons given above, the proceedings before the B Magistrate K. E. S. C. Are competent. Accordingly, I dismiss this quashment application. PLD 1952 Lah. 369 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.