Judgment : The accused in C.C.No. 324 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C., praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the chargesheet against the accused for offences under Secs.39, 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with 379, I.P.C., alleging that for non-payment of the electric consumption charges, electric connection bearing No. 152 was disconnected on 9. 1988 that the accused had committed theft of electricity by illegally taking electric connection and thus had caused loss to the Electricity Board to the tune of Rs.36,515. 3. Mr.R.S. Ramanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the authorities had not found out as to who was in possession of the land and who was actually consuming the electric energy and who had actually committed theft by putting any artificial means and has laid the charge sheet and hence it is liable to be quashed. I have heard Mr.Shanmugha-velayudham, the learned Additional Public Prose-cuter, on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. Mr.Ramanathan would draw my attention to the statement of P.W.1. Raman recorded under Sec. 161(3), Crl.P.C. In his statement, he has stated, that this electric connection No. 152 was given to Ramasundra Pandian (accused) for agricultural purposes that because he did not pay the electric consumption charges of Rs. 2,187.90, the electric supply was disconnected on 9. 1988. He has further stated that at the lime of their inspection, they found that the electric wires which were disconnected had been re-connected by the consumer himself and had been using the electric motor. He has further stated that there was no other instrument for baling out the water and that by using of the electric motor, the lands were being irrigated. He has also stated that electric energy was so taken through 5 H.P. motor and by this theft of electric energy, the Electricity Board had suffered wrongful loss of Rs.36,515. Similar are the statements of witness No. 2 Arumughapcrumal and witness No. 3 Geroge. From the statement of P.W.1. Raman, it emerges that this electric energy supply was given to the accused. Similar are the statements of witness No. 2 Arumughapcrumal and witness No. 3 Geroge. From the statement of P.W.1. Raman, it emerges that this electric energy supply was given to the accused. The term “consumer” is defined in Scc.2(c) of Indian Electricity Act and it reads as follows: “Consumer” means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force,and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.” On the statement of Raman (P.W.1), it is seen that the accused was supplied with energy by licence and as such he falls within the definition of “consumer”. It is also seen from the statement of Raman (P.W.1.) that it was found out that the disconnected electric wires were used for setting re-connection of electric energy and the electric motor with 5 H.P was being used and water was being taken out. Sec. 39 of Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 39 of 1980 reads as follows: “39. Theft of energy: (1) whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with imprisonment for terms which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be 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.” The clause “it shall be presumed” until the contrary is proved that such abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer”. In the instant case, the accused is the “consumer” as per the definition of Sec. 2(c) of the Act. As per the statement of Raman (P.W.1.), there was illegal reconnection and extraction of electric energy and using of electric water by such user. So the presumption which I have extracted above would come into operation. In the instant case, the accused is the “consumer” as per the definition of Sec. 2(c) of the Act. As per the statement of Raman (P.W.1.), there was illegal reconnection and extraction of electric energy and using of electric water by such user. So the presumption which I have extracted above would come into operation. So on the facts of the case, I cannot say that the prosecution is liable to be quashed at the threshold. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner had sold the land and so in no way connected with the act. It is for him to prove during the course of trial. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am clear that this prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold. 6. In the result, the petition fails and shall stand dismissed.