Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Mahabir Prosad Lilha vs The Purulia Electric Supply ... on 3 April, 1958 cites

Srinivas Mall Bairoliya vs Emperor on 28 April, 1947

15. It will be observed that Sub-section (2) of Section 21 is nowhere mentioned in Section 55 by which the State Government could authorize the discharge of the functions mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 21) to any of the Inspectors. Mr. Dutt has ultimately fallen back upon the doctrine of mens rea. He argues that even if it be found that there Was no proper sanction by the State Government, the respondent Company thought that the sanction of the Electric Inspector was enough for them to impose restriction. It is impossible to accept this view. Absence of sufficient diligence and care which a reasonable person was expected to exercise will not. in my judgment give him any protection for an offence of this land. The case of Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. The King Emperor, 51 Cal WN 900 : (AIR 1947 PC 135) (A), cannot by any means be stretched to cover a case like this. Summing up the above it comes to this that the appellant was found to use energy on a Sunday on which day under the orders of the Respondent Company such energy could not have been used, that the Respondent Company did issue orders from time to time restricting the use of energy by consumers although such power of restriction was not provided for in the license granted to the Licensee Co., that such restrictions were provisionally sanctioned or acquiesced in by the Electric Inspector, Bihar and finally that the Electric Inspector, Bihar. had no authority to grant such sanction nor was any authority proved to have been delegated to him.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 78 - Full Document
1   2 Next