Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 765 (BOM)

Rajesh v. State Of Maharashtra

2019-03-15

T.V.NALAWADE

body2019
JUDGMENT : T.V. NALAWADE, J. 1. The petition is filed to challenge the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ahmednagar passed on Exhibit 7 in R.T.C. No.46/2000 and also to challenge the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar delivered in Criminal Revision No.261/2012. Both the sides are heard. 2. The respondent, electricity company, has given report to police on the basis of inspection made by flying squad of the company, that the petitioner, the person managing the affairs of a factory, had committed the offence of theft of electricity. They had noticed tampering of the connection, tampering of C.T. and P.T. boxes as the seals were found to be removed. There was transformer installed for supply of electricity to this factory. The supply was passed through two C.T. & P.T. boxes. The C.T. & P.T. boxes are installed to reduce the voltage of the electricity so that the meter can properly read the consumption of electricity. It is the case of the respondent that if there is tampering with the C.T. & P.T. boxes supply can be directly taken before entering the supply in the reading meter and the meter can also be restricted to alter the actual supply of electricity. The electricity company perused the record to find out theft of electricity and it noticed that from November 1996 to November 1999 there was theft of 16,72,019 units and the value of this consumption was around Rs.55,17,663/-. By adding 25% of surcharge the demand of Rs.68,97,078/- was made against present petitioner and the crime was registered on the basis of FIR given by the Electricity Company. The case was filed for the offences punishable under sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act 1910. 3. Before the Judicial Magistrate, application for discharge was filed by the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that provision of section 379 of Indian Penal Code cannot be used as already there are the provisions of sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act. As there was no discharge for offence punishable under sections 39 and 44, aforesaid revision was filed by the present petitioner. The Sessions Court has dismissed the revision. 4. As there was no discharge for offence punishable under sections 39 and 44, aforesaid revision was filed by the present petitioner. The Sessions Court has dismissed the revision. 4. By referring to some observations made by Delhi High Court in two cases reported as (1) (Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi, (1998) CriLJ 579); and, (2) (Swaran Dhavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2002) CriLJ 4763 the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there needs to be some material like apparatus shown to be fixed for abstraction of electricity and that may be even wire and as there was no such thing noticed by the officers, inference of theft of electricity is not possible. This submission is not at all acceptable. Even in the two cases on which reliance is placed, there is no mention that the prosecution is expected to prove the connection of such apparatus or wire. What is required to be proved is abstraction of electricity and that abstraction is possible by various ways including the fixation of particular period for use when there is no possibility of inspection by the officers of Electricity Company. Ordinarily, factory runs over the clock and the officers pay visit in day time. There are various ways to ascertain the theft of electricity and that can be on the basis of actual supply made through that high voltage line to a particular factory and the charges paid by the factory on the basis of consumption shown by the meter. Thus, it cannot be said that abstraction of electricity which was done illegally cannot be proved in other manner by the prosecution. As there is such possibility the observations made in the aforesaid two cases are of no help to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case reported as (Jagarnath Singh v. H. Krishna Murthy, (1967) AIR SC 947). In that case the Apex Court has observed that only due to tampering of the meter inference of abstraction of electricity is not possible to make out it as offence punishable under section 39 of the Electricity Act. There is no dispute over this proposition. In that case the Apex Court has observed that only due to tampering of the meter inference of abstraction of electricity is not possible to make out it as offence punishable under section 39 of the Electricity Act. There is no dispute over this proposition. In addition to the tampering of the meter or CT & PT boxes like in the present matter, the prosecution is required to show that there was abstraction of electricity which was more than the electricity shown to be consumed by the meter of the petitioner. That will be the matter of evidence and calculations are already made. 6. Another submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the aforesaid amount demanded was reduced by the appellate authority to make it one-third and even that decision is challenged by filing proceeding in the District Court by the petitioner and the same is still pending in the District Court. In any case the criminal Court will have to decide the matter on the basis of evidence that will be given before it. No interference is called for in the decision given by the Sessions Court. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.