Tinplate Company Of India Ltd. v. Gautam Das — 1994 DIGILAW 348 (PAT)

Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Crl P. C. has been preferred for quashing the whole criminal proceeding in J. C./I. 94/84 pending before Shri Narayan Prasad Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur against the petitioner and also specifically the order dated 5-2-1994 should be held to be illegal having no force in the eye of law. 2. The brief fact of the case is that one Narayan Chand Das father of the present opposite party filed a complaint before the C. J. M., Jamshedpur on the ground that the petitioner-Company being a licensee of the Electricity Board allowed electric supply connection to the complainant-opposite party and the same was withdrawn without any rhym and reason and even after several request and also assurance made earlier, the same had not yet been restored which caused damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000 to the complainant. On the basis of said complaint and after enquiry cognizance was taken against the petitioner. Against that order of cognizance, the petitioner came to this Court in Criminal Revision No. 241 of 1984(R) and the same was disposed of vide order dated 10-5-1988 holding that the petitioner can raise all his point before the trial court after appearance by filing application, which would be disposed of by the learned court below according to the law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition for their discharge vide Annexure-3. The same was heard and then impugned order was passed holding that the point raised by the petitioner can only be adjudicated at an appropriate stage. Against this order, the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the whole criminal proceeding and notice was sent to the opposite party at the admission stage. The matter was heard at the admission stage itself at length. 3. It should further be mentioned here that once this complaint petition was dismissed for default and then the complainant came up before this Court in Cr. Revision No. 113/91(R), which was allowed at the admission stage without giving notice to the petitioner. In course of proceeding before the court below, the original complainant died and as is revealed, his son the present opposite party was allowed to conduct the prosecution in the nature and circumstances of the case. 4. Mr. Revision No. 113/91(R), which was allowed at the admission stage without giving notice to the petitioner. In course of proceeding before the court below, the original complainant died and as is revealed, his son the present opposite party was allowed to conduct the prosecution in the nature and circumstances of the case. 4. Mr. P. S. Dayals submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the continuance of the proceeding after dismissal by another person substituting in place of the complainant is bad in the eye of law as there is no scope of substitution in the summary proceeding case. His further submission is that the petitioner not being a licensee, he cannot have pemitted any supply of electric energy to other person. According to the petitioner, TISCO Ltd. is the licensee of the Electricity Board and the petitioner to connection from TISCO and he gave connection to his employee and the complainant not being his employee, the question of supply of connection to the complainant does not arise and withdrawal of the connection from the petitioner, even if granted, cannot attract the penal provision of Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that no offence under Section 427, I. P. C. can be attracted from the nature of complaint, as alleged. 5. On the first contention, I do not find much force in the submission of Mr. Dayal. 6. Section 256, Cr. P. C. after amendment provides that sub-section (1) of the said section should also be applicable in case of non-appearance of the complainant due to death of the complainant i. e. acquittal should be granted to the accused person on the death of the complainant an his non-appearance but the Supreme Court held before the amendment also that the death of the complainant cannot ipso facto terminate the criminal proceeding ( AIR 1967 SC 983 ). But once the complaint is dismissed on that ground alone, the same cannot be revived by the Magistrate and the remedy is available with the High Court. Relying on that decision, the several High Courts including the Jammu and Kashmir as reported in 1989 Cr. L. J. 1856, it has been held that merely on the death of the complainant, the complaint filed by him cannot be dismissed nor the accused be acquitted or discharged. 7. Relying on that decision, the several High Courts including the Jammu and Kashmir as reported in 1989 Cr. L. J. 1856, it has been held that merely on the death of the complainant, the complaint filed by him cannot be dismissed nor the accused be acquitted or discharged. 7. It is true that there is no provision for bringing on record the legal representatives of a party in criminal proceedings but if the offence alleged is of such nature that the prosecution can be conducted by some other person found to be fit by the Magistrate, the same can be continued. 8. In the present case, supply of essential commodities withdrawn. Electric connection was withdrawn by the petitioner from the residence of the complainant and as such learned court below was right in allowing his son to continue with the proceeding. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Dayal. Moreover, in such substitution, it is not necessary that the petitioner or the accused should be heard. It is a matter between the court and the complainant. Moreover, from the records, it is found that the same was not dismissed not on the basis of the death of the complainant, rather it was dismissed after the substitution was made because of the absence of present representative of the complainant the case was dismissed for default and hence the same was revived by this Court, vide Annexure-4. 9. On the other point, to the effect that the petitioner is not a licensee cannot be looked into at this stage as it is a matter of fact to be proved at the time of trial as because there is specific allegation in para-1 of the complaint petition that the petitioner was a licensees. Moreover, there is also admission on the part of the petitioner, to the effect that he supplied electric connection to the residence of the complainant. 10. I do not find any force in this petition. 11. Mr. Dayal has also raised the question of delaying of disposal of the petty criminal case, but it seems that the delay has been caused due to the petitioner himself when he is coming to this Court over and again and get it stayed. 12. Considering the above, the delay in the disposal cannot be considered in the present circumstances, as stated above. 13. 12. Considering the above, the delay in the disposal cannot be considered in the present circumstances, as stated above. 13. This petition is dismissed having no force.