Judgment :- This petition is filed seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.6476 of 2003 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate court, Saidapet, Chennai so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows: On 10.01.2003 at 19-15 hours, the officials of the Electricity Board inspected the Service Connection No.217:08:635:TF:V in Door No.159, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 which stands in the name of the petitioner herein and it was found that there was theft of energy by tampering the MRC seal provided in the meter. A show cause notice dated 22.1.2003 was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer for the recovery of the loss and also extra levy in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. Finally for the alleged offence, a complaint under section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was made in Crime No.50 of 2003 of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station and the same was filed before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was the owner of the property and the electricity connection stands in his name that the premises consist 22 shops which are leased out to various persons and the alleged tampering has occurred in the shop leased out to a tenant by name K. Navarathna Ganesh who is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Murugan Travels, STD&ISD booth and that therefore, the petitioner is not responsible for the alleged theft of energy. 4. But, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the petitioner is the consumer as per the records and that therefore, the petitioner is also liable for the offence committed by the lessees. 5. Even in the complaint based on which the FIR was lodged, it is mentioned that Thiru.Navarathina Ganesh, proprietor of M/s. Murugan Travels, STD, ISD Booth is in possession of the shop wherein tampering of the meter was found out. The petitioner is the owner of the entire building where 22 shops are situated. The petitioner has produced the lease deed dated 21.05.2002 by which possession of the said shop by the lessee is proved. The petitioner is the owner of the entire building where 22 shops are situated. The petitioner has produced the lease deed dated 21.05.2002 by which possession of the said shop by the lessee is proved. It is also mentioned clearly in the above lease deed that the current consumption charges should be paid by the lessee according to the reading of the additional meter directly to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board promptly. Even in his letter dated 02.09.2003 the petitioner has informed the Chairman of the Electricity Board about the leasing out the premises to various persons who will pay the electricity charges promptly and he has also undertaken to pay the electricity charges for all the shops if the tenants fail to pay the electricity charges. 6. In the decision reported in Jagannath Singh Vs.Ramasamy (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 849) wherein it has been held as follows: "7.The effect of the last part of S.39 is that the existence of the unauthorised means for abstraction is prima facie evidence of dishonest abstraction by some person. The special rule of evidence goes no further. The prosecution must prove aligned that the accused made the abstraction. The fact that the accused is in possession and control of the artificial means for abstraction coupled with other circumstances showing that he alone is responsible for the abstraction may lead to the inference that he is guilty of the dishonest abstraction. 8. An exposure of a stud hole on the meter cover is an artificial means for preventing the meter from duly registering for the purposes of section 44, the existence of this artificial means gives rise to the presumption that the meter was prevented from registering. But this presumption cannot be imported into S.39. A meter with an exposed stud hole, without more is not a perfected instrument for unauthorised taking of energy, and cannot be regarded as an artificial means for its abstraction. To make it such an artificial means, the tampering must go further, and the meter must be converted into an instrument for recording less than the units actually passing through it. A check meter affords an easy method of proving that the consumer's meter is recording less than the units consumed and is being used as an artificial means for abstraction of the unrecorded energy. A check meter affords an easy method of proving that the consumer's meter is recording less than the units consumed and is being used as an artificial means for abstraction of the unrecorded energy. To being home the charge under S.39 the prosecution must also prove that the consumer is responsible for the tampering. The evidence adduced by the prosecution must be establish beyond doubt that the consumer is guilty of dishonest abstraction of energy." In the decision reported in State Vs. Jothi (Vol.XXXVII The Madras Lasw Journal Reports (Criminal) 109), it has been held as follows: "2. It is argued that the court below has found that there was tampering with the meter. That being the case, the third accused, the owner of the company, who alone would stand to gain by the said tampering of the meter should have been found guilty and his acquittal is wrong. It is in evidence that at the time of inspection of 10.4.1983 at 10.30 am., only the 2nd accused was present. Neither the first accused nor the third accused was present. According to the 3rd accused, he was not at all aware of any tampering of the meter as alleged. May be there was tampering of the meter and the meter was running anti-clockwise instead of clockwise, but the question is whether the 3rd accused was responsible for it. As stated above, the accused was not present at the time of inspection. It is not in evidence that any time before also there was such tampering of meter. If there was tampering of meter, just for the reason that the 3rd accused was the owner of the company and it may be that he alone would stand to gain, it cannot be said that really he was responsible for tampering of the meter. In this connection the learned Government Advocate cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Jagannath Singh alias Jainath singh, Sohari Lal Vs. B.S. Ramasamy, now Krishnamurthy and another, AIR 1966 SC 849 ; 1966 Crl.L.J 697: 1966 S.C.D.531: 1966 M.W.N.213: 1966 S.C.W.R.266: (1966) 1SCR 885. On a careful reading of this judgment it appears to me that far from supporting the prosecution, it helps the third accused. B.S. Ramasamy, now Krishnamurthy and another, AIR 1966 SC 849 ; 1966 Crl.L.J 697: 1966 S.C.D.531: 1966 M.W.N.213: 1966 S.C.W.R.266: (1966) 1SCR 885. On a careful reading of this judgment it appears to me that far from supporting the prosecution, it helps the third accused. In paragraph 8 of the judgment it has been stated thus: "To bring home the charge under Sec.39, the prosecution must also prove that the consumer is responsible for the tampering." This means that only because a person is a consumer of electricity, he cannot be held to be responsible if there is any tampering of the meter. In our case there is absolutely no evidence to show that the third accused, the consumer was responsible for the tampering. I find that the court below has rightly acquired third accused." 7. From the above said decisions it is clear that the prosecution must prove that it was the owner of the property who tampered the meter. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the second accused Navarathna Ganesh was the lessee of the property and the service connection was used by him only. By tampering with the meter, the beneficiary is only the said Navarathna Ganesh, the second accused and not the petitioner. Only the person who gets the benefit of tampering the meter and abstracted energy is alone the beneficiary. By tampering the meter, the owner of the building is in no way going to be benefitted. Therefore, there is no necessity for the owner of the building to tamper with the meter. On this principle though the petitioner is the consumer on record as per Sec.2(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, the actual consumer in the sense the person who is actually enjoying electricity through the said meter is the lessee of the property and the said service connection was used by him only. Therefore the actual consumer is only the said Navarathina Ganesh the lessee and not the petitioner. On this score alone the charge against the petitioner herein is not maintainable. Hence, the charge against this petitioner alone is liable to quashed. 8. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons, the Crl.O.P. is allowed and the charge against this petitioner alone is quashed and the prosecution can proceed against the second accused in this case. Consequently connected Crl.M.Ps., are closed.