Judgment : 1. The petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 11220 of 2011 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai Totally two accused are involved in this case. The respondent filed the final report against them for the offences punishable under Sections 39(1), 44(i) (C) of the Indian . 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service connection stands in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner is the owner of the premises and the said premises let out on rent to the second accused and he was running the plastic factory. He further submits that even., according to the prosecution case, the petitioner is not occupying the premises and it was only the second accused, who was running the factory occupying the premises and the second accused only was using the connection. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submits that as the service connection stands in the name of the petitioner, he has been arrayed as a first accused. However, he would fairly admit that the petitioner who is the first accused was not occupying the premises at the time of inspection and it was only the second accused who was running the factory and the notice was given only to the second accused. 4. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records. 5. It is relevant to refer provisions under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(C) of the Act which reads here under: “Section 39(1): Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which shall be not 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. Section 44(1)(c): Penalty for interference with metres of Licensee‘s Work and for improper use of Energy:- (1)(c) Maliciously injures any meter referred to in Section 26, sub-section (1), or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in Section 26, sub-section (7) or wilfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering.” 6. As per the above said provisions, it is clear that whoever dishonestly, maliciously or wilfully or fraudulently acts is to be held liable, but criminal liability cannot be fixed on the person merely for reason that the service connection stands in his name. If he is not the actual consumer of energy unless there is specific material that he had been party to the offence, liability cannot be fixed on such person. 7. As per the material available in this case, it is stated that in the F.I.R and also in the statement of witnesses that it was only the second accused, who is the proprietor of the plastic company was running the factory and he was in occupation of the premises and he was fully responsible. There is no material against the 1st accused that he was actual consumer or he was party to the offence along with second accused. Hence, the proceedings in C.C. No. 11220 of 2001 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the 1st accused/petitioner alone stands quashed. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.