***

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. (ORAL) –

This C482 application is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Garur, District Bageshwar in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2020, State of Uttarakhand vs. Mohan Singh under Section 338 of IPC as well as judgment and order dated 06.06.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2023, whereby the judgment and order dated 12.01.2023 summoning the accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) has been affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the informant–Suresh Chandra Singh lodged an FIR being F.I.R. No. 0008 of 2019, dated 02.04.2019 against unknown persons registered with Police Station Kausani, District Bageshwar. In the F.I.R., it is disclosed that, on 02.04.2019, daughter of the informant-Km. Himani aged about 14 years got injured because of the electrocution, which she received when she went on to the roof of the house to hang the clothes; she was rushed to a hospital and from there was referred to a Higher Centre. Subsequently, in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, during treatment, her right hand was found to be completely damaged which had to be amputated and her left hand also sustained severe injuries. The said F.I.R. resulted into filing of a charge-sheet only against the owner of the house – Mohan Singh. During trial, after examination of the witnesses especially P.W.10, the trial court came to the conclusion that since the 33 kw. line was laid down by the respondent – Department, which is under a duty to maintain it, and it was only due to its negligence, incident happened the trial court issued summons to the U.P.C.L. through its Managing Director to appear as an accused in the matter, accordingly, vide order dated 12.01.2023 under Section 319 of the Code.

3. Feeling aggrieved, U.P.C.L. took the matter to the Revisional Court by filing a Revision Petition No. 2 of 2023, Managing Director of U.P.C.L. Vs. State of Uttarakhand before the learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar and the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2023 rejected the revision and affirmed the judgment and order passed by trial court dated 12.01.2023.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that there is no evidence on record worth enough to summon the U.P.C.L. as an accused to face the trial and the trial court was required under the law to have more than a prima-facie case to summon the applicant – U.P.C.L.

5. From perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the sequence of the incident in which the unfortunate girl sustained severe injuries, and evidence of P.W.10 available on record, this Court is surprised to note that how the owner of the house can alone be held responsible for the negligence, exonerating the U.P.C.L. from the offence. It is the duty of the U.P.C.L. to maintain its line, which is going through the habitation. It is not reflected from the record that the same has ever been inspected by the U.P.C.L. In the evidence available on record, which has been noticed by the trial court as well as by the Revisional Court, it is reflected that the N.O.C. for permission to construct the said house was given by the U.P.C.L. only on the strength of an affidavit submitted by the owner of the house that he would construct the house three meters away from the line and not under it, but there is nothing on record to suggest that as to whether ever U.P.C.L. has inspected the house through its officials there, to find out as to whether the house was constructed as per the affidavit given by the owner of the house.

6. One fact, which has swayed the mind of the Court is that an F.I.R. was lodged against the Electricity Department, but after investigation, the charge-sheet was only submitted against Mohan Singh - owner of the house and not against any official of the U.P.C.L. This was noticed by the trial court that Ex. P.11 and P.13 were there on record by which an attempt was made by the U.P.C.L. to make house owner liable for any untoward incident in future. But by doing this it cannot absolve it from its legal responsibility to maintain the lines. It is also there on record that the accused in the year 2016, wrote a letter to the U.P.C.L. that due to landslide a line was bent, which was admitted by P.W.10, in his cross-examination. Although, he stated that the damaged line was repaired by the U.P.C.L.

7. From the material available on record as well as the evidence of P.W.10, it cannot be said that the negligence was not there on the part of U.P.C.L., which is the main functionary to manage the network of the electric lines. By the impugned order, the U.P.C.L. has only been directed to face the trial as an accused and yet the U.P.C.L. has every opportunity to defend itself from the prosecution.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and orders impugned in the present C482 application. Consequently, the C482 application is hereby dismissed.

Application dismissed.

********