S T MAKJIJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for revisionist. The revision is against order dated 12.12.1995 passed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby charge under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act has been directed to be framed against the revisionist.

(2.) I have perused the impugned order. The plea taken before the concerned Magistrate by the revisionist was that the prosecution was launched only to defeat the injunction order dated 1.12.1992 passed by Shri C.K.Chaturvedi in favour of the revisionist and that the meter which was removed from the site did not belong to the accused. Here in this revision petition, one more plea is being taken that the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act had not been complied with and as such cognizance could not have been taken. Learned counsel for the revisionist says that in the lower Court, an application for discharge was moved but it was rejected. That rejection order is not being assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) The present revision is only against impugned order whereby charge has been directed to be framed. Moreover consideration of this plan would require doing into facts which in this revision would not be appropriate. Therefore, this additional plea taken by the revisionist is not being considered. The revisionist may take recourses to separate remedy which may be permissible under law.