CRR/1691/2024 of MONIRUL ISLAM @ MONIRUL SK. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 7 September 2026

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revisional application under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of FIR No. 50 of 2024 dated February 28, 2024, registered under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is presently pending before the Court of the learned Special-cum-Additional District Judge, Burdwan, Purba Burdwan.

2. The prosecution case originated from a written complaint lodged on February 28, 2024, by Mr. Sumanta Dey, Assistant Engineer and Station Manager, Natunhat

Customer Care Center, WBSEDCL. According to the complaint, a raiding team comprising several utility officials conducted an inspection on February 24, 2024, at approximately 14:05 hours at a submersible pump installation operated by the petitioner, Manirul Sk.

3. The inspection revealed that although a legal three-phase submersible pump connection bearing Consumer ID 515081726 stood registered in the name of one Sariful Islam Sk., the actual user, identified as the petitionerwas running the pump by drawing a three-phase line illegally from the nearby Distribution Transformer LT bushing side directly to the premises by means of direct hooking. This unauthorized arrangement bypassed the existing meter, resulting in the consumption of electricity without proper recording.

4. The inspection reveals that although there was a legal three-phase submersible pump connection bearing Consumer ID 515081726 standing in the name of Sariful Islam Sk., the useridentified during inspection as the present petitioner, Monirul Sk. was running the pump illegally by drawing a three-phase line directly from the nearby Distribution Transformer LT bushing side to the submersible pump premises by means of direct hooking.

Electricity was consumed through this arrangement in such a manner that no proper consumption was recorded by the existing three-phase meter, constituting a clear case of theft by direct hooking.

5. Upon detecting the theft, the raiding team disconnected both the legal and illegal lines to prevent further abstraction, and the hooking devices were recovered and seized from the premises. Although a seizure list was prepared between 14:35 hours in the presence of the user, he refused to sign it. After observing all legal formalities, the raiding team left the spot and lodged the complaint.

6. Consequently, Kalyani Police Station Case No. 50 of 2024 was started, investigation ensued, and it culminated in a charge sheet filed on April 30, 2024, against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the State refers to pages 4-5, 10-11, 14-17, and 32-34 of the case diary and submits that there are sufficient materials on record to establish a strong prima facie case against the petitioner.

8. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties, I find that the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate directly to disputed questions of fact which are to be decided by the Trial Court upon recording evidence. It is a settled principle of law that a Revisional Court cannot hold a mini-trial to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, after the submission of the charge sheet, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the FIR does not sustain in the eye of law.

9. Accordingly, the criminal revisional application stands dismissed on merits.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

12. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court.

(Uday Kumar, J.)