Hiralal Dutta v. Joy Gopal Dey — 1981 DIGILAW 300 (CAL)

JUDGMENT This Rule is directed against a proceeding pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate being C.R. Case No. C/961 of 1979 under S.40 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and under S. 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that he was a tenant in respect of a room at 63, Prem Chand Boral Street and he is to pay 52/- as monthly rent for the said room which is inclusive of electric charges. The petitioner accused is his landlord and a case was going on between him and the landlord as the petitioner has filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of rent and hence a dispute was going on between the petitioner, the landlord and the opposite party (tenant). It is alleged by the opposite party that on 21.4.79 his landlord disconnected electric line although he was not a defaulter in payment of rent, as a result he had to live in darkness and water supply to his room also was discontinued. Thereafter on 5.6.79 the opposite party went to the petitioner landlord and requested him to restore the electric line and also the water supply. But instead the landlord petitioner abused him in filthy languages. The learned Magistrate after five witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party, being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out under S. 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under S. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act. As no charge need be framed he examined orally the petitioner under S. 251 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner has come up in revision for quashing the proceeding. Mr. Talukdar has submitted that none of the of the offences have been made out by the five witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the opposite party. So far as the offence under S. 504 IPC is concerned, the incident is alleged to have been taken place on 5.7.79 and the offence under Electricity Act is alleged to have been taken place on 21.4.79. These two offences are distinct offences and there is a long gap of time between the two occurrences. Both the offences cannot be tried at one and the same trial. Therefore, Mr. Talukdar is right. These two offences are distinct offences and there is a long gap of time between the two occurrences. Both the offences cannot be tried at one and the same trial. Therefore, Mr. Talukdar is right. The offence under S. 504 IPC, if any, cannot be tried along with an offence under S. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act Moreover, all the five witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party have only said that the petitioner abused him in filthy language without mentioning the other ingredients of the offence under S. 504 IPC The charge under S. 504 IPC is untenable in law and in fact. Accordingly, the same is quashed. 3. So far as the charge under S.40 of the Indian Electricity Act is concerned, although Mr. Talukdar has produced a letter from the Electric Supply Department dated 7th May, 1981 that the meter was disconnected on 30.4.79 (Meter No. 64469 at 63 Prem Chand Boral Street). This is the meter from which the opposite party drew electricity or this is the meter which is referred to in the petition of complaint and in the evidence of witnesses and this letter which is produced here, should have been exhibited before the learned Magistrate Therefore, the application for quashing the charge under S. 40 of Indian Electricity Act, on that ground in my opinion, is premature. But there is another ground which is more substantial. That is supported by a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1947 Calcutta 339. The facts in the present case are similar to those of the reported case under consideration. In this case the evidence on record is that the charge for electricity is included in the rent and the electric meter stood in the name of the landlord, the predecessor of the present trustee (present landlord). It is alleged that the petitioner cut the electricity line resulting in non-supply of the electricity to the complainant opposite party. Such a case would not come under the provision of S. 40 of Electricity Act (1910). A consumer is entitled to cut the electricity supply line of his own premises and so discontinue a Supply to himself, unless this in some way adversely affects the Electric Supply Co. Therefore, in doing so, the petitioner commits no offence under the Electricity Act. This view is taken in the case quoted above. A consumer is entitled to cut the electricity supply line of his own premises and so discontinue a Supply to himself, unless this in some way adversely affects the Electric Supply Co. Therefore, in doing so, the petitioner commits no offence under the Electricity Act. This view is taken in the case quoted above. Apart from this case another case bas been refereed to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. This is reported in AIR 1965 SC 666 . It is laid down in this case that S. 50, or the Electricity Act applies to the offences under Ss. 40-47 of the Act. These offences under the Act can only be prosecuted at the instance of a person mentioned in S. 50 of the Electricity Act by the Government or a Electrical Inspector or a person aggrieved by the same. The opposite party (tenant) cannot be termed as a person aggrieved as the meter stands in the name of the petitioners, who should be the persons aggrieved. As he has not come up, the prosecution dose not lie at the instance of the opposite party de facto complainant. The latter is enjoying electricity by contract between himself and the petitioner. So in any view of the matter the present proceeding cannot go on. In the result, the same is quashed and the Rule is made absolute. Let the records go down immediately. Rule made absolute: Proceeding quashed.