Madras High Court
P.Yamuna vs State Rep.By on 2 September, 2008
Author: K.N.Basha
Bench: K.N.Basha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 02.09.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Crl.O.P.No.32465/2005& Crl.MP.No.9916/2005 P.Yamuna .. Petitioner/A1 -Vs- State rep.by the Inspector of Police H-4, Korukupet Police Station Chennai 600 021. .. Respondent Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in CC.No.12279/2004 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nellaiyappan For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran,APP ORDER
The petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 out of 3 accused, has come forward with the above petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against him in CC.No.12279/2004 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, for the alleged offence under sections 39[1] and 44[1][c] of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 pending in CC.No.12279/2004 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service connection of the premises stands in the name of the petitioner and the premises was owned by the petitioner, but the same was let out on rent to tenants. Accused 2 and 3 are the tenants occupying the premises and the meter was installed only in the premises under which the companies of A2 and A3 were functioning. It is contended that even as per the admitted allegation of the prosecution, the petitioner has been implicated only on the ground that the service connection was standing in the name of the petitioner but the electricity was actually consumed by the tenants, viz., A2 and A3 and as, such, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged offences in this case. Learned counsel would place reliance on the complaint as well the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., from the Tamilnadu Electricity Board Officials, viz., Mr.S.Ramasamy, Assistant Executive Engineer, Mr.Ezhil Johnson, Assistant Executive Engineer and Mrs.D.Supriya, Assistant Executive Engineer and the allegations contained in the complaint as well as the statements of the said witnesses clearly shows that the electricity consumption was used and enjoyed only by A2 and A3. It is further contended that even the electricity meter also was installed only in the premises under the occupation of A2 and A3. Therefore, it is contended that even if the allegations contained in the complaint and other materials available on record, viz., the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., from the Electricity Board Officials to be taken in its entirety as true, no offence is made out and as such, the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed.
3.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the service connection stands only in the name of the petitioner herein who has been arrayed as A1 She being the owner of the service connection and also she being the consumer, the petitioner is also liable to be prosecuted. It is contended that the materials available on record discloses that the husband of the petitioner was summoned at the time of inspection by the Electricity Board Officials. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend that as per the complaint, there was tampering in the meter installed in the premises which was owned by the petitioner herein and as such, the petitioner should also be held liable for the offence of theft of electricity and also for the offence of tampering the meter.
4.I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the impugned complaint and other materials available on record.
5.A perusal of the entire materials available on record discloses that the petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 out of 3 accused has been given the service connection of electricity supply in her name. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the premises. The undisputed fact remains even as per the earliest document, viz., the complaint preferred by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, that the premises which was owned by the petitioner was under the occupation of two companies of A2 and A3, viz., a Paper Manufacturing company and a steel factory and only the service connection was given in the name of the petitioner herein. Apart from the earliest document, viz., the complaint, a perusal of the charge sheet filed also discloses that two companies were functioning in the premises and the disputed electricity meter was also fixed in the premises and the service connection stands in the name of the petitioner and as such, the owner of the service connection, the petitioner/A1 as well as the persons who were actually running the companies were held liable for the offence under sections 39[1] and 44[1][c] of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
6.In the statements recorded from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board officials, it was categorically stated by them that the premises in which the electricity meter was installed was under the occupation of the tenants and the tenants were running two companies and A2 and A3 are, admittedly, the tenants who were consuming electricity supply and the petitioner has been implicated only on the ground that the service connection stands in her name.
7.It is relevant to refer the provisions under section 39[1] and 44[1][c] of the Act which reads here under:-
"Section 39[1] :-
Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which shall be not less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both; and if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of the energy by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
Section 44[1][c] :-
PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE WITH METERS OF LICENSEE'S WORK AND FOR IMPROPER USE OF ENERGY : -
[1][c]:-maliciously injures any meter referred to in section 26, subsection [1], or any meter, indictor or apparatus referred to in section 26, sub-section [7] or wilfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indictor or apparatus or prevents any such mete, indicator or apparatus from duly registering."
8.From the reading of the above said provisions, it is crystal clear that whoever commits the offence is held liable and the liability was not fixed on the person in whose name the service connection stands. Therefore, as far as the penal provision contained in the Act is concerned, every person who has tampered the meter or abstracted the energy unauthorisedly, would be held liable for the offence as stated above. As already pointed out that even as per the admitted version of the prosecution , only A2 and A3 were occupying the premises and they were consuming and enjoying the supply of electricity and as such, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 could be fastened with the liability of the above said offences merely on the ground that the service connection stands in her name. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would amount to a clear case of abuse of the process of Court.
9.As such, the proceedings initiated in CC.No.12279/2004 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioner/A1 is concerned. The petition is allowed accordingly. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ap To
1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police H-4, Korukupet Police Station Chennai 600 021.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras